1. ' SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.---In these four Constitution petitions, question of law and facts are involved. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they were heard together to be governed by this common judgment.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are that pursuant to the import policy the petitioners, like many other importers, were issued valid Import Licences for import of pesticides, insecticides and they imported number of drums of pesticides, Methamidophoes - Monocrotophos and Cypermethrine from foreign countries against valid import licence under PCT 3808-1090 vide S.R.O. 153 (1)/92, dated 4-3-1992. The consignments arrived at Karachi Port. The goods were examined and it was found to consist of insecticidially active organic chemicals (Methamidophos).
3. The petitioners paid custom duties and cleared the consignments from bonded warehouses and were delivered to them. The consignments were received to their godowns. It seems that the respondent No,4 visited the godown and unlawfully seized drums under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 and directed the petitioners not to remove or part with or deal with the goods except with their prior permission.
4. ' The petitioners challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that they were being discriminated. They claimed that they were also entitled to clearance of the consignments as allowed to other importers. The petitioners asserted that they were being discriminated without there being any justification for the same.
5. ' Apparently, there appears no justification for the differential treatment. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit but without explaining the circumstances under which a different treatment was meted out to the petitioners. During the pendency of the above petitions, this Court passed the following orders:-- "The parties have filed a joint statement which is brought on record.
6. ' By consent the consignment shall be released in terms of the statement. The petitioners undertake that they will not dispose of and or part with the possession of the consignment till the disposal of the petition. The breach of this undertaking will be breach of injunction. In view of this joint statement, Misc. Applications are disposed of."
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to special circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to relief as nothing has been placed before us to justify "discrimination. The respondents admitted in their" affidavit that they have cleared the consignments on the basis of Letter No,16 (18)/91-IMP-9 dated 30-7-1992. The respondents stated that they subsequently came to know that it was fake. This assertion is denied by the petitioners. There is nothing on the record to show that it was a fake letter produced by the petitioners for clearance of the A consignments. However, without going further in the merits, we are of the opinion that since the petitioners have already imported the goods and paid customs duties and other charges, it would not be just or proper to restrain the petitioners from selling or parting with the possession of the goods at this stage.
8. ' We think that ends of justice would be met if the petitions are disposed of in terms of the interim order by deleting the condition or restriction of sale or part with the possessions of the consignment in question on the condition that the petitioners are directed to give an undertaking to pay any other charges if due or payable on account of violation of I.T.C. And further to give undertaking to provide sale exemption certificate within sixty days from the date of this judgment.