' MAMOON KAZI, J.---By this common judgment we propose to dispose of C.P. No, D-1057/89 and D- 600/91, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. The petitioners have imported consignments of scrap number respectively. However, on physical examination the Customs Authorities declined to release the goods on the ground that the goods which had been imported were capable of being used as tyres and therefore, their import was not permissible under para. 5(1)(i) of the relevant Import Policy. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was given to each of the petitioners and the matter was dealt with by the relevant authorities and the goods were ordered to be confiscated. The petitioners moved the Wafaqi Mohtasib-e-Aala in the meanwhile, but without any success. However, finally when the matter went before the Collector of Customs in pursuance of the order passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib-e-Aala, the goods were ordered to be restored to the petitioners in appeal. However, the petitioners thereafter found themselves in a big dilemma as the goods were declined to be released to them unless huge storage charges which had been claimed by the Karachi Port Trust from the petitioners had been paid by them. The petitioners protested but all in vain, and hence the present petitions.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Asar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and M.
Muhammad Jameel, learned counsel for respondents Nos,1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No,3 in C.P. D-1057/89 and Mr. Abbas Ahmad in C.P. No, D- 600/91.
4. Our attention has been invited to section 43 of the K.P.T. Act which empowers the Board of Trustees of K.P.T. To frame or alter scales of tools and charges, etc. Section 43B then provides that every scale framed and every alteration of a scale made by the Board under section 43 or section 43A (with which we are not concerned in the present case) shall be submitted to Government for sanction; and have the force of law. The learned counsel have invited our attention to the Notification issued in the Gazette of Pakistan SRO 20 (KE)/881, dated 9-2-1988. Note 6 wherein under Table II provided as follows:-- "Note(6)---Seven working days after the landing date will be treated as FREE PERIOD except in the case of Afghan-in-transit cargo where 14 days free period will be allowed.
' The Traffic Manager or his deputy may, at his discretion, grant an extension of free period where a full consignments (sic) been landed after the 'landing into'.
' In exceptional cases, an extension of free period may also be granted-where portions of consignments are landed subsequent to the landing date.
' Where consignments cannot be cleared through no fault of the importer, and extension of free period may be allowed, but the period of such extension will be granted by the quantity of goods ready for clearance and will commence from the time they are available for delivery."
' Mr. Muhammad Asar Hussain learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the said note argues that since the consignments were not cleared without any fault on the part of the petitioners, therefore, by virtue of the last paragraph of the aforesaid note, charges for storage of goods can be demanded from the petitioners by the K.P.T. Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan and Mr. Abbas Ahmed on behalf of the said respondents, have however invited our attention to note 8 which provides as follows:-- "Note (8).---In cases where a Customs Detention Certificate is issued for the whole or part of a consignment, storage charges will be levied at the rate of Rs,5.00 per tonne or part thereof plus Rs............ Per tonne or part thereof (sic) per day on the whole or part of detention and working days thereafter also in the opinion of the Board there are other reasons which do not justify this concession."
' The contention of the learned counsel is that the goods would be governed by Note 8 which is more specific and not Note 6 which is not attracted in the circumstances of the present case. A plain reading of Note 6 indicates that it provides, in the first instance, for "free period". Further perusal of the said note shows that the Traffic Manager of the K.P.T. Or his Deputy, as the case may be has been vested with discretion to grant an extension of free period in certain cases. The relevant paragraph in Note 6 upon which Mr. Asar Hussain has relied is also to be read in conjunction with the other paragraphs of the said note. In our view it is Note 8 which would be applicable in the present case. As suggested by the language used therein in cases where Customs detention certificate is issued for the whole or part of a consignment storage charges still to be levied, but at the rates lower than those which would otherwise be applicable in normal cases. A comparison of the two notes further shows that Note 8 is more specific and is more attracted to the facts of the present case as compared to Note 6. Consequently, we have no hesitation in agreeing with Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan and Mr. Abbas Ahmed that Note 8 is applicable in the present case.
5. The next question which now arises is whether the petitioner would be liable to pay storage charges to the K.P.T. Or it is the Federal Government which would be liable for payment of the said charges. Mr. Asar Hussain has invited our attention to section 182 of the Customs Act which is remade as follows:-- "182. Vesting of confiscated property in the Federal Government. --When any goods are confiscated under this Act they shall forthwith vest in the Federal Government, and the officer, who orders confiscation shall take and hold possession of the, confiscated goods."
' There appears to be no controversy on the point that the goods of the petitioners on arrival at the Karachi Port were confiscated under the orders of the Customs Authorities. The goods remained under confiscation for a long time until they were released after an order to the same effect was passed by the Collector of Customs in appeal. Mr. Muhammad Asar Hussain has contended that such goods remained under confiscation without any fault on the part of the petitioners therefore they should not be made liable for the payment of the storage charges to the Karachi Port Trust in view of section 182 of the Customs Act. Mr. Muhammad Jamil was unable to meet' the contention raised by Mr. Muhammad Asar Hussain by any satisfactory explanation. Copies of the various orders passed by the Customs Authorities no doubt indicate that the goods had been confiscated by the Customs Authorities. In that case, as provided under section 182 of the Customs Act, the goods remained vested in the Federal Government until they were ordered to be restored to the petitioneRs,. Consequently, we are of the view that it should be the Federal Government which should be liable for the storage charges to the K.P.T. During the period the goods remained under confiscation and the petitioners should not be burdened with this additional amount of tax.
However, so far as the K.P.T. Is concerned, under section 46 of the K.P.T. Act,. The Board of Trustees of the said respondents shall have lien over the goods until the dues of the said respondents are satisfied.
6. In the result, these petitions are allowed but only to the extent as pointed out above. We would however, clarify that in our view in case the petitioner get the goods released after payment of the charges to the K.P.T. They can realise the amount payable for the period the goods remained under confiscation by instituting legal proceedings against the Federal Government. However in case such proceedings are instituted the same would be decided on their own merits. The parties are left to bear their own costs.