IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.--1. The petitioners Messrs D. M. Brothers exported a number of consignments of tennis rackets and make-up looking mirrors to Dubai and United States of America. They actually shipped the consignments but before the goods could leave the port the Vigilance Department of the Customs Authorities suspected valuation of the consignment declared by the petitioners and drew certain samples. The goods were allowed to be exported. The Customs Department then initiated adjudication proceedings and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. Initially the petitioners avoided to participate in the proceedings before the Customs Authorities and approached this Court for certain relief. Under orders of this Court the petitioners participated in the proceedings and claimed that the samples drawn from the consignments did not belong to them and the petitioners did not sign the memo of seizure. This was the only plea taken by the petitioners before the Adjudication Authorities. Evidence was recorded by the Customs Authorities in the presence of the petitioners and they did not cross-examine the witnesses] As a result the Collector of Customs passed an order on 18th July, 1985 (Case No. MIB 23/1984), whereby he concluded that the petitioners had over-invoiced the prices of the two items and that the samples were drawn on the spot in the presence of the petitioners' Shipping Agent, Clearing Agent and two witnesses and on account of over-invoicing the petitioners had withdrawn certain amounts of rebate which they were not entitled on proper valuation of the goods exported by them. He, therefore, directed that the amount of custom rebate already drawn by the petitioners amounting to Rs. 546,165 should immediately be deposited in the Customs Treasury: and he imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for misdeclaration under clause 14 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.
The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue, without any success. The Member Judicial, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, however, concluded that as the petitioners had remitted the entire foreign exchange proceedings for the amounts declared by them in the invoices they were entitled to compensatory rebate and R.M.R. Licences under the rules to be decided by the State Bank of Pakistan and the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Their revision before the Federal Government also did not succeed and they have now filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate for the petitioners, has stated at the bar that the petitioners had not even received compensatory rebate and R.M.R. Licences after the direction contained in the order of Member Judicial, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan was passed in appeal. He further contended that the valuation of the goods exported by the petitioners has been arbitrarily determined by the Customs Authorities and the material relied by them for the purpose was not shown to the petitioners. He has relied on the cases reported in 1985 CLC 1781 and PLD 1988 Karachi 99.
3. Mr. M.L. Shahani, Advocate appearing for the two respondents in this petition, states that he is unaware if the compensatory rebate or the R.M.R. Licences have not ben given to the petitioners as neither the State Bank of Pakistan nor the Chief Controller of the Imports and Exports have been impleaded as parties to this petition and even if petitioners have not been granted such concession no writ can be issued through this petition as they are not parties to this petition. He further contended that the petitioners have based their case on controversial facts which is beyond the scope of a petition under the Constitution.
4. Admittedly the only point that was taken before the respondents was that the samples examined in the case were not drawn from the consignments exported by the petitioners and that memo, of seizure was not signed by any of the representative of the petitioners. Both these points on the basis of evidence recorded before respondent No. 1 were decided against the petitioners.
The second point about the valuation was not even raised before any of the respondents to this petition. The petitioners cannot for the first time raise such a plea through present petition. No relief on the first ground can be granted to the petitioners because the appropriate respondents have not been impleaded as parties to this petition. The State Bank of Pakistan and the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports will however be free to consider the request of the petitioners in accordance with the rules if they find it appropriate in the case.
5. For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to the costs.