1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---Petitioners M/s. Zahra Industries Ltd. Have invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against a revisional order passed by the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.), Government of Pakistan on 31-8-1987 declining to concede rebate in payment of customs duties and sales tax allowable under CBR Letter No,3 (95)-SS(CR)/78, dated 9-2-1980 addressed to the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Customs House, Karachi.
2. ' Under said letter CBR decided, to reimburse customs duties and sales tax paid by importers, on import of raw material used in manufacture of those goods which were to be supplied for use of Afghan refugees against international tendeRs, ' In pursuance of said CBR letter dated 9-2-1980 the petitioners claimed reimbusement of customs duties and sales tax paid by them for import of material used in manufacture of tents supplied by them from 1981 to 1984 after being awarded such contract by Inter Aid Committee which had invited international tenders for supply of the same.
3. ' In response to their claim, the petitioners were issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs (E port Rebate) a show-cause notice dated 25-6-1986 to show cause, as to why their claim for rebate should not be rejected as the goods in question were shipped on 15-2-1981 while the claim for rebate was preferred on 6-3-1986 viz after expiry of 120 days from the date of shipment of the goods and publication of the SRO No,113 (I)/80, dated 30-1-1980. After perusing the record and hearing represenative of the petitioners the Assistant Collector of Customs Export Rebate under an order dated 27-6-1986 on 10-8-1986 rejected the claim, on the only ground that it was time-barred by 1,724 days. Petitioners challenged said order under Appeal No,1497 of 1986 which was dismissed by the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs (Appeals) South Zone, Karachi. Petitioners took the matter to the CBR by filing Revision Application No,1 (1877 to 1907)/Rev-Cus/86 which was rejected as unsubstantiated. Hence this petition.
4. ' Mr. Rana M. Shamim learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were entitled to be reimbursed with the amount paid by them as scustoms duty and sales tax on import of the material used in preparation of the tents, supplied by them for Afghan refugees after participating in the international tenders invited by Inter Aid Committee. It was added that the petitioners got the knowledge about the rebate very late and hence there was delay in preferring the claim for rebate.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the letter dated 9-12-1980 about rebate, copy of which was endorsed to M/s. Siddiq Sons Industries Ltd., only and to no other importer or exporter. It was next argued that the petitioners should have been treated on par with M/s. Siddiq Sons Industries who were allowed rebate. It was further argued that no period of limitation was prescribed for filing rebate claim under C,B.R.'s letter dated 9-2-1980 and that rejection of petitioners' claim for rebate was unjustified and illegal.
6. ' Mr. Ikram Ahmad Ansari, learned D.A.G. Argued that the rebate allowed by the CBR's letter dated 9- 2-1980 could be claimed within the period during which rebate was claimable on exports under SRI No,113 (I)/80, dated 30-1-1980 and under SRO No,135 (1)/82 dated 11-2-1982. It was next argued that in the instant case claim of the petitioners was highly belated as their imported goods were shipped on 15-2-1981 while they preferred claim for rebate on 6-3-1986.
7. ' Under SRO No,113 (I)/80, dated 30-1-1980 the CBR authorised repayment of customs duties and refund of sales tax on the import of raw material used in production or manufacture of certain goods which were exported on or after 28-6-1979. Under SRO No,135 (1)/82, dated 11-2-1982 the CBR amended its previous SRO No,120 (I)/81, dated 12-2-1981 and laid down that the repayment authorised by the notification dated 12-2-1981 shall be admissible in respect of the goods exported on or after 1-10-1981.
8. ' As per the CBR letter dated 9-2-1980 CBR had decided to grant repayment of customs duty and sales tax, paid on import of raw material used in manufacture of goods supplied for use of Afghan refugees against international tenders, and for this purpose such supply of manufactured goods was to be treated as export. The CBR did not issue a separate notification, allowing rebate on import of raw material used for manufacture of goods supplied for use of Afghan refugees, but extended benefit of existing notification to the import of such raw material. In other words CBA letter dated 9-2-1980 by itself does not authorise rebate or refund in terms of clause (c) of section 21 of the Customs Act.
9. ' Said letter extends benefit of the already existing notifications issued under clause (c) of section 21 of the Customs Act, to the import of raw material used for manufacture of goods supplied for use of Afghan refugees subject to certain other conditions.
10. ' In their Constitution petition, the petitioners have not mentioned (i) the date of import of raw materials, (ii) the date of supply of the goods for use of Afghan refugees and (iii) the date of preferring the claim for repayment except reproducing certain facts from a letter dated 30-9-1986 by the Controller of Customs (Preventive) to the Chief (Survey and Rebate) CBR, Islamabad. Said letter mentions period of supply of goods to be from 1981 to 1984 and the date of preferring the claim for rebate to be 6-3-1986. Said letter also shows that the petitioners lodged rebate claim under SRO 113 (I)/80 dated 31-1-1980, and SRO 135 (1)/82, dated 19-2-1982 and in terms of Board's letter dated 9-2-1980 a copy of which was endorsed only to M/s. Siddiq Sons Industries, Karachi.
11. This shows that basis of claim of the petitioners is, the two notifications issued by CBR on 30-1-1980 and 19-2-1982. CBR letter dated 9-2-1980 only enables the petitioners to take benefit of the notifications dated 30-1-1980 and 19-2-1982 although the same are not mentioned in the same.
12. However, in the CBR letter dated 9-'2-1980 there is mention that claim for rebate is to be preferred within a particular period of limitation.
13. ' Rebate claimed by the petitioners in pursuance of CBR's letter dated 9-2-1980 was disallowed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Export Rebate) under his order dated 10-8-1986 on the only ground that the rebate was claimed after expiry of 120 days of the date of shipment of the raw material imported by the petitioneRs, The period of 120 days is said to have been fixed by SRO 113(I)/80, dated 30-1-1980. While maintaining order of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Export Rebate) dated 10-8-1986 the Collector of Customs (Appeals) under his appellate order dated 21- 10-1986 took view that reading of the CBR letter dated 9-2-1980 does not warrant the presumption that it was meant for all. He found stand of the petitioners conflicting as they sought concession of rebate under the Notification SRO 113(1)/80, dated 31-1-1980 and at the same time contended that they were not bound by the said notification so far as limitation period for filing for rebate claim is concerned. The Collector also noted that the petitioners had addressed a letter dated 20-7-1986 to the CBR but had not been able to get any confirmation that their said letter covered their consignment. Rejecting the revision application directed against the said order dated 21-10-1986 (wrongly mentioned as dated 25-10-1986) the Additional Secretary, CBR under the impugned order dated 31-8-1987 took view as below:-- 'Perusal of the case record reveals that rebate claims were filed after a lapse of about three years from the date of shipment and the applicants had failed to prove by cogent reasons that the abnormal delay involved in submitting the rebate claims to the appropriate officer under the relevant SROs was beyond their control."
14. ' In the hierarchy of customs authorities, no exception was taken to the fact that copy of the CBR letter dated 9-2-1980 was endorsed only to M/s. Siddiq Sons Industries Ltd., Karachi and to no other private party. No reasons were given anywhere for such discriminatory treatment. This would weigh in favour of the petitioners being allowed condonation of period of limitation if such period was fixed.
15. ' Copy of the Notification SRO No,113(1)/80, dated 30-1-1980 issued by CBR, as supplied by learned D.A.G., does not show if any period of limitation was prescribed within which the rebate of excise duty could be claimed. Notification SRO 135(1)/82, dated 11-2-1982 has amended Notification No, SRI 120(1)/81, dated 12-2-1981 with the result that some categories of goods were substituted for the original goods on production, manufacture and export of which repayment of customs duty and sales tax was allowed. No period of limitation within which the reimbursement of customs duty or sales tax is to be claimed, is provided in the body or at end of the notification.
16. ' For the foregoing reasons we accept this Constitution petition and declare the impugned orders to have been passed without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. Consequently we call upon the Assistant Collector of Customs (Export Rebate), Karachi, to pass a fresh order on application of the petitioners in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.