' FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This judgment will dispose of petitions Nos. 939/75 to 947/75, 984/75, 1001/75, 1046/75, 1047/75 and 1102/75.
2. The petitioners challenge both the applicability and the validity of the Notifications dated 21-8- 1975 levying customs and regularity duty on imported steel products at 62i % ad valorem.
3. It may be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of law before coming to the facts which are essentially the same in all the petitions. Under subsection (2) of section 79 of the Customs Act 1969, an importer is required to deliver bill of entry of the goods imported to the concerned officer of the Customs at any time after the delivery of the manifest, provided, however, that the Collector of Customs may, in any special circumstances permit a bill of entry to be presented before the delivery of the manifest. Subsection (3) of section 43 of the Act makes it obligatory on the Master of the vessel to deliver import manifest within 24 hours after the vessel is anchored within the limits of the port to the concerned Customs Officer. Under subsection (1) of section 45 every such manifest shall be signed by the Master of the vessel or his duly authorised agent and shall specify all goods imported in such vessel showing separately all goods, if any, intended to be landed, transhipped, transited or taken on to another customs-station or to a destination outside Pakistan and stores intended for consumption at the customs-station or on the outward voyage or journey, and shall be made out in such form and contain such further particulars as may be prescribed. Section 46 requires the person receiving an import manifest under section 43 to counter-sign the same and enter therein such particulars as the Collector of Customs from time to time directs. Subsection (2) of section 45 provides that the appropriate officer shall permit the Master or his duly authorised agent to correct any obvious error in the import manifest or to supply any omissions which in the opinion of such officer results from accident or inadvertence by furnishing an amended or supplementary import manifest. Finally, the proviso to section 30 of the Act provides that when a bill of entry has been filed in advance of the arrival of the vessel by which the goods have been imported, the relevant date for determination of rate of import duty shall be the date on which the manifest of the vessel is delivered. Clause 20 of section 156 of the Act makes the failure of the Master to deliver the manifest within 24 hours after anchoring an offence punishable with a fine of Rs. 5,000. Similar fine is provided in clause 23 if the import manifest does not contain the particulars of goods required to be stated in such manifest.
4. The petitioner in each of these petitions filed advance bill of entry after obtaining the necessary permission from the Collector of Customs under proviso to subsection (2) of section 79 of the Act.
The goods in question were carried in each case by Ss. Rangamati, a vessel owned by the National Shipping Corporation, which vessel arrived at the Outer Anchorage of the port of Karachi on 8-8- 1975 and took berth on 14-8-1975 at 16-30 hours. The Master of the vessel delivered the import general manifest to the Assistant Collector of Customs on 15-8-1975 as required by section 43 of the Act, which manifest was counter-signed on the same date at 10-15 hours by the Assistant Collector of Customs under section 46 of the said Act. This manifest was assigned I. G. M. No. 1089. The manifest described the cargo as general cargo, gave its total tonnage and declared that no drugs or opium was on board. It gave other relevant information in the annexures filed but omitted to specify separately goods on board with their distinctive marks and numbers. On 27-8- 1975 the Master of the vessel Rangamati delivered a supplementary manifest giving separately the goods on board alongwith their distinctive marks and numbers. The case of the petitioners is that the date relevant for the purpose of determining the rate of import duty is the date of the manifest filed by the Master of the vessel on 15-8.1975 while the department contends that there was no manifest in the eye of law and the date relevant would be the date of the second manifest filed by the Master of the vessel on 27-8-1975 which would in turn attract the higher duty at 62i% under notification dated 21-8-1975. The learned Deputy Attorney-General conceded that if the conclusion is that the second manifest is the supplementary manifest under subsection (2) of section 45 of the Act, then the relevant date for the purpose of determining the rate of import duty is the date of the first manifest, namely 15-8-1975. Before we examine the respective contentions one more relevant fact may be mentioned and that is that on 5-9-1975 the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a show-cause notice to the National Shipping Corporation. In this show-cause notice it is alleged against the National Shipping Corporation that the Import General Manifest filed on 15-8- 1975 was not in accordance with law as it failed to satisy the provisions of section 45(1) of the Customs Act 1969 and as such it did not constitute a proper manifest. Similarly the supplementary manifest filed by them was also not a legal document under subsection (2) of section 45 of the Act.
A further allegation was that the Corporation had contravened section 32 by misdeclaration of goods and that these contraventions were punishable under sections 156(1) and 156(14). The Corporation was called upon to make the reply within 10 days.
5. We have examined with care the two manifests dated 15-8-1975 and 27-8-1975 delivered by the Master of the vessel Rangamati to the Customs Authorities and to or mind the conclusion is irresistible that the second manifest was in fact a supplementary manifest. That the second manifest was filed by the Master expressly as the supplementary manifest is admittedly so. What is more, however, is that even the Customs Authorities have acted upon it as a supplementary manifest. The seconc manifest starts with sheet No. 2 being the continuation of the sheet marked one of the first manifest. It has been described in the endorsement made 4 by a customs official as a supplementary manifest. The second manifest has not been given a separate I. G. M. Number but bears the same number as of the first manifest. It is not possible to read the second manifest independently of the first manifest for without the Annexures of the first manifest and the endorsement thereon that there was no drug or opium on board, the second manifest would be an incomplete document. In the show-cause notice address to the National Shipping Corporation the Assistant Collector Of Customs describes the second manifest as the supplementary manifest. If it was the case of the Customs Department that the first manifest was non-existent in the eye of law, then the proper and obvious allegation against the Master of the vessel or the shipping company would have been failure to deliver manifest within 24 hours and therefore, an offence under section 156(2)(a) Moreover, there would be no occasion to allege contravention of subsection (2) of section 45 in the show cause notice it the second was not a supplementary manifest. The learned Deputy Attorney-General contended that the second manifest must be looked and examined on its own to ascertain its true character notwithstanding its description given by the Customs Officers as a supplementary manifest. We are, however, inclined to think that responsible officers of the Customs would not have given to a document a known legal nomenclature without meaning it. If the first manifest was not acceptable to the Customs the least they could have done was to return the same and call upon the Master of the vessel B to forthwith file a proper manifest and not rest content with a delayed second manifest notwithstanding the mandatory requirements of section 43 for delivery of manifest within 24 hours after anchoring. In the circumstances we find no merit in the contention of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the manifest relevant for determining the rate of duty was the manifest dated 27-8-1975 and not the manifest delivered and accepted on 15-8-1975 at 10.15 hours.
6. We have also found substance in the argument of Mr. Haider Mota, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the manifest for the purpose of calculating customs duty under section 30 is the manifest delivered by the Master and accepted by the Customs notwithstanding its incompleteness or inadequancy under section 45(1) for only that part of the manifest is relevant for the purpose of section 30 which determines the arrival of the vessel and consequently the date of import. Any other interpretation would bring about absurd consequences. If in the present case, for examine, the duty was higher on 15-8-1975 will the revenue be deprived of it by the omission of the Master to fully comply with subsection (1) of section 45? What would have been the consequences, if in the present case the omission in the manifest was in giving the required specifications or details regarding half of the total eviable cargo? Surely it is not the intent of the law to make the duty payable dependent upon the will of the Master of the vessel or his caprice or neglect.
7. The result is that these petitions are allowed with costs and it is declared that customs duty on petitioner's consignments in question is leviable as provided by S. R.
0. 983 (1)/1974 dated 18-7-1974 and not under notification dated 21-8-75. The bank guarrantees furnished by the petitioner for additional duty claimed are discharged and they may be returned.
8. Before we part we may add that we have advisedly refrained from entering into a larger controversy regarding the validity of the impugned notifications dated 21-8-1975 for it is not only unnecessary but inappropriate for it will arise in the other connected petitions which are yet to be heard and decided.