1. ' KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, J.---By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order in original dated 30-8-1977 passed by the respondent No,3, ordering the confiscation of the goods in question with an option to the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs,150,000 in lieu of such confiscation, the second order in appeal dated 4-4-1978 passed by the respondent No,2 whereby the amount of fine was reduced to Rs,75,000 and the order dated 19-6-1982 passed by the respondent No,1, on petitioner's revision application dated 27-4-1978, whereby the said Revision was rejected.
2. ' It appears that the petitioner applied for and was granted a licence No,781102 dated 6=10-1976 of the value of Rs,59,400 for the import of 2700 pounds of "Yarn and thread of man-made fibre excluding above 100 (Thicker) deniers of Acetate, other than viscose" under Serial No,373 of Free List (Part B for Industrial Consumers) of Import Policy Order 1976 (SRO 645 (I)/76).
3. ' Order for the import of the aforesaid goods was placed by the petitioner on M/s. Mitsui & Co.
4. Limited through their local agent M/s. Rupali Nylon Ltd. The said goods were shipped by M/s. Mitsui & Co. Limited in 27 cartons marked as "Riverloft" and on arrival at Karachi the necessary bill of entry was presented by the petitioner through clearing agent M/s. Shahid Hafeez Limited on 5-3-1977.
5. The Customs Authorities assessed the import duty at Rs,30,324 which was paid by the petitioner on 19-4-1977. As the goods were not released after payment of the duty the Clearing Agent of the petitioner made inquiries when they were informed that the Customs Authorities entertained doubt about the goods being in accordance with the delcaration and as such the matter had been referred to the respondent No,3.
6. ' On 4-5-1977, the respondent. No,3 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that "on physical examination' the consignment has been found to be comprised of different Brand and deniers of Polyster Texturised yarn viz. Soluna, toyobo woollir tetron Brand of 135/1136,150/30/1, 40/1107,75/36/300 deniers as against the declared Brand of Reverloft and denier of 75/36/300 TPM.
7. The import of yarn of different deniers and brands is of the job-lot quality of the consignment, the import of which is not permissible vide para. 5 of Import Policy Order, 1976-77", and requiring the petitioner to submit their explanation and appear for hearing. The petitioner submitted their reply dated 16-6-1977 to the said show-cause notice. The respondent No, 3 by his order in original dated 30-8-1977 held that "The goods have since been examined and found that these are stock-lot and not first quality as argued by importers at the time of hearing on 22-6-1977. The contravention is therefore clearly established as the importation of stocklot/job-lot goods is not permitted under the relevant Import Policy. I, therefore, order that the offending goods be confiscated under section 156 (9) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3 (3) of I & E (Control) Act, 1950. However, I give an option to the owners of the goods to pay of fine of Rs,150,000 (Rupees one lac fifty thousands only) in lieu of confiscation under section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969. This option shall lapse if not exercised within 30 days from the date of issue of this order. Against the aforesaid orderin-original, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 193 of the Customs Act before the respondent No,2, who by his order remanded the case. It appears that after such remand representative samples of the yarn were sent to two laboratories namely Customs Laboratory and the Cotton Textile Industrial Research and Development Centre (Ministry of Industries) Government of Pakistan, Karachi, for testing and while the report of the former laboratory appears to show that the sample composed of 100% polyster, denier, 75,6D, that of the latter, as pure polyster with 77.16 range. After these reports, the order-in-appeal dated 4-4-1978 was passed whereby the amount of fine was reduced to Rs,75.000. This order-in-appeal was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Revision Application before the respondent No,1 which application was, however, rejected by order dated 19-6-1982.
8. ' Mr. Siraj-ul-Haq the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the only reason given by the respondent in their respective orders of arriving at the conclusion that the goods in question were job-lot/stock-lot was that on the cones there were several labels of different description and giving different denieRs, He submitted that the position was satisfactorily explained to the respondents at the time of hearing as also in the reply to the show-cause notice and further in telext from the Mitsui & Co. Ltd. To the effect that it was common practice in Japan to use same paper cones several times and every time a cone was used the label of the yarn for which the cone was used was put inside of the cone and when the same was re-used usually the earlier label was not removed but the label of the new yarn was put over the old label. He stated that it was by reason of such repeated use of the same cone that several labels were found on these cones, when they arrived at Karachi, but on each of these cones at the time of arrival at Karachi, the label of the imported yarn of River-loft was on the top. He submitted that the fact that as a result of the laboratory test, the entire lot of the goods were found to be less than 100 deniers established that the other labels did not have any relevance to the imported goods for these labels related to different denieRs, The petitioner's counsels relied on the cases of State v. Salim Ali, Chairman, Ally Brothers &Lahore (1983 SCM R 1302), Stocko Company v. The Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue and 2 others (1990 CLC 84) and K.S. Sulamanji Somailkji & Sons Limited v. Pakistan through Member, Central Board of Revenue etc. 1990 M LD 2291). In so far as the Supreme Court's case is concerned, it was found by their Lordships, on the basis of evidence, that the goods were not substandard. The second case does not seem to be relevant for the purpose of the present petition for the only point involved there was the interpretation of the import licence vis-a-vis the relevant item of the Free List. The last case also does not appear to be of much assistance to the petitioner for it related to the valuation of the imported goods and it was held that full particulars and evidence of the value on which reliance is placed by the department should not only be disclosed in the show-cause notice but its copy should be provided to the importer so that he may be in a position to rebut it. On the facts of that case it was found that this requirement was not complied.
9. In the present case the show-cause notice contained all the particulars on which the Customs authorities considered that the goods in question were not in accordance with the import licence.
10. ' Mr. Mohammad Akmal Waseem the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents with regard to quality of the imported goods was not based on the label alone, but was also based on visual examination of the yarn.
11. ' We have gone through the impugned orders and from the order in appeal dated 4-4-1978 it appears that the respondent No,2 had himself examined the samples and found the goods not of standard type. Similarly in para 4 of his order dated 30-8-1977 the respondent No,3 has observed that: "The goods have since been examined and found that these are stock-lot and first quality...." None of the two laboratory reports have touched this aspect of the case. It is, therefore, apparent that the finding of fact that the goods were not of standard type is based on visual examination of the goods also and as such it is not possible for us to upset, in writ jurisdiction, such finding, all the more, when the goods have already been delivered to the petitioner and there is no means now to have its quality tested. It appears from the order of the respondent No,1 that one of the reasons for rejecting the Revision Application was that the goods were out of customs charge, and therefore, its quality could not be verified at that stage. Since under the Import Policy Order, 1976, import of job-lot/stock-lot/substandard quality of goods was band, no fault can be found with the impugned ordeRs, ' In the circumstances, we find no force in the petition and dismiss the same. However, there will be no order as to costs.