1. ' AMANULLAH ABBASI, J.---The petitioner is a private limited Company carrying on business of "Printing" at Lahore. The petitioner company imported Duplex Board with White Back Clipper from U.S.A. For their use and. Consumption. The Bill of Lading for abovementioned material carried the address of petitioner/consignee as of Lahore. On 17-10-1994 a request was made by the petitioner for amendment/entry in the import manifest which had arrived with the consignment on 28-8- 1994. This request was made to bring the declaration in consistency with the intent of imported goods. On 30-10-1994 the petitioner received a show-cause notice issued by the Appraisement Collectorate, Customs House Karachi by which the petitioner came to know that the consignment of the petitioner destined for the Dry Port had been detained at Karachi. The reply was sent to the show-cause notice but as there was no communication from side of respondents, the petitioner served legal notice on the authorities issuing the said show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner has requested that the seizure and detention of the imported goods through the contract/indent No,NAD/I/Z dated June 13, 1994 loaded on container No:ADLU-451548 by respondent No,1 be declared as illegal, void, mala fide, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. It is further prayed that a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other relevant order may also be issued against the respondents Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 for releasing and handing over the seized container/goods in question to the Pakistan Railways at Karachi Port Trust for the re-transportation to the Dry Port at Lahore.
2. ' The respondents Nos.1 and 2 submitted counter-affidavit of Dr. S.M. Tariq Huda, Assistant Collector of Customs Appraisement (Law) who denied the allegations of petitioner and further submitted that the respondent No:4 i,e, the Chief of Operation. In Pakistan, American President Lines in their counter-affidavit had stated that the goods would be discharged at Karachi, Pakistan being, the Port of discharge. The Bill of Lading is not a "through Bill of Lading" as such the delivery was to be made at Karachi and not at Lahore. An information was received in the Appraising Intelligence Branch that the consignment imported by the petitioner declared as waste paper comprised Duplex Board of the prime quality which was examined by Customs Staff on 5-9-1994 after serving notice dated 4-9-1994. The amendment in the import manifest was filed on 17-10-1994 which itself indicated that the Duplex Board of prime quality were misdeclared as waste paper of P.C.T.
3. Heading 4810.1200 whereas the waste paper is correctly classifiable under P.C.T. Heading No,4707. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner deliberately misdeclared the description of the goods in the Import General Manifest in order to evade Government dues. The consignment was examined by Customs Staff which comprised prime quality Duplex Board as against waste paper declared. Since the goods were-hot waste paper these were assessable at U.S. Dollars 638 per metric ton attracting Customs duty at 70% and sales tax at 15% chargeable on waste paper.
4. Since the documents produced were false in material particulars it constituted offences under sections 16 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 and in consequence thereof, respondent No,1 issued a show-cause notice dated 23-10-1994. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the Import General Manifest of, the vessel carrying consignment imported by the petitioner was filed in the Customs House on 28-8-1994 vide I.G.M. No,1553/94 dated 28-8-1994. The application for amendment of the description in the Import General Manifest was filed on 17-10-1994 by the Shipping Agent M/S A.P.L. Agencies (NO Limited, Karachi, i,e, after 1 month and 20 days whereas according to the public notice dated 6-6-1993 the amendment should have been sought within 7 days of the arrival of the vessel on 28-8-1994.
5. ' The respondent No,4 also filed counter-affidavit Mr. Salim Amlath Financial and Administration Manager of respondent No,4 who stated that the goods in question were to be delivered by respondent No,4 at Lahore. It is mentioned in the Bill of Lading that the goods would be discharged at Karachi and the Bill of Lading was not a "through Bill of Lading" as such the delivery was to be made at Karachi and not at Lahore.
6. ' The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the intention of the petitioner can be seen from the indent, L.C. And Bill of Lading. He submitted that Bill of Lading shows the destination of imported goods at Lahore therefore, the action of the respondents was illegal. He has relied on decisions reported in 1990 ALD pages 356, 359, 1990 CLC pages 1022 and 1030. The learned advocate for the respondent No,4 has relied on decisions reported in 1990 CLC page 1022, PLD 1989 Lah. 89, PLD 1992 SC 485, PLD 1988 Kar. Page 99 and 1988 SCMR 691.
7. ' The learned advocate for the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 5 has submitted that the dates in this case are relevant. The carrier is not supporting the petition. He referred to page 17 to substantiate this argument. He requested that Annexure to counter-affidavit may be seen which is public notice issued by Collector of Customs dated 6-6-1993 prescribing 7 days' time for amendment in I.G.M which commenced from date of arrival of vessel but no such request was made during the prescribed period but once the petitioner was cought then he tried to change his stand by requesting amendment of the entry. He referred to Annexure which is notice of seizure under sections 171 and 180 of the Customs Act and it is dated 5-9-1994. The show-cause notice (Annexure 'C') was issued to the petitioner but he did not appear. He further submitted that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands and therefore he was not entitled to discretionary relief. He also referred section 223 of the Customs Act to point out that the D.S.O. Was contrary to the proviso of section 223 and therefore, the provision of act has to prevail.
8. ' There is D.B. Decision of this Court which is relevant to the proper disposal of this petition. This decision is reported in 1992 CLC 57 The Customs General Order No,15 of 1989 has been reproduced and discussed in this decision. It is necessary to reproduce paragraphs 3 and 4 of this decision:--- "3. We have already reproduced above the letter containing the instructions issued by the C.B.R regarding trans-shipment of imported cargo to upcountry dry ports. After going through the same we are of the view, that under sub-paragraph (i) of the above instructions, if the address of the party to be notified is disclosed in the Bill of Lading as of an upcountry destination or the mark and numbers on the Bill of Lading indicate an upcountry destination via Karachi, then in that case the consignment cannot be detained at Karachi. However, if any misdeclaration or suspected contravention is discovered in respect of such consignments, the information is to be conveyed to the respective. Collector of Customs or Deputy Collector of Customs Incharge of Dry Port or the Directorate of Intelligence at the dry port. These instructions are applicable both in cases where either the notifying party as indicated in the Bill of Lading is situated in upcountry destination, or the shipping marks on the consignment indicate the upcountry destination via Karachi. In the case before us it is admitted position that the Bill of Lading was allowed to be amended under section 45 of the Customs Act and the name of the notifying party has been shown as Allied International Lahore and therefore in terms of the instructions referred to above transshipment of consignment to the Dry Port Lahore should have been allowed. In our view the absence of shipping marks on the consignment, could not give jurisdiction to the Directorate of Customs Intelligence, Karachi to detain the consignment at Karachi Port when the address of notifying party was shown at Lahore.
9. In such a case if the respondents had discovered any contravention of Customs Law by the importer, they should have allowed the consignment to proceed to its destination namely the dry port at Lahore and notified its offices there for action or convey the above information to the Collector of Customs at Dry Port as was required under the law.
4. The learned standing counsel also contended that the present case is covered under sub- paragraph (iii) of the instructions and as such the action taken by the respondent was justified.
10. Paragraph (iii) of the instructions clearly states that transshipment is not to be allowed in cases where the party to be notified on the Bill of Lading is based at Karachi or the mark and numbers on the Bill of Lading do not indicate upcountry destination. The Bill of Lading in the present case shows the address of notifying party as of Lahore and therefore in our view instructions contained in paragraph (iii) of the letter are not applicable in the present case.
11. ' We are in complete agreement with the principle laid down in this decision but this decision cannot be made applicable to the present case because there are some distinguishable features.
12. The principle laid down in this decision is that if the Bill of Lading shows upcountry destination or the mark and numbers on the Bill of Lading indicate an upcountry destination via Karachi then in that case the consignment cannot be detained at Karachi. This is not the case in present petition as Bill of Lading is available at page 15, Annexure 'B' shown the discharge Port and destination Port as Karachi. The counter-affidavit filed by Mr. Salim Almani, Financial and Administration Manager of respondent No,4 has stated in para. 4 of his counter-affidavit as under:--- "It is submitted that in the Annexure 'B' to the petition (Bill of Lading) it is clearly mentioned that the goods would be discharged at Karachi, Pakistan, being the Port of discharge. The Bill of Lading is not a "through Bill of Lading" as such the delivery was to be made at Karachi and not at Lahore."
13. ' This fact has not been denied in the affidavit in rejoinder by the petitioner and the document Annexure 'B' shows the destination Port as Karachi. The second distinguishing feature is that in the case referred, it has been mentioned as under in the middle of paragraph 3:- "In the case before us it is admitted position that the Bill of Lading was allowed to be amended under section 45 of the Customs Act and the name of the notifying party has been shown as Allied International Lahore and therefore in terms of instructions referred to above transshipment to the Dry Port Lahore should have been allowed."
14. In the, present petition the Bill of Lading has not been amended under section 45 of Customs Act and therefore, the destination of the consignment remains as Karachi. In such a case it is within the competence of concerned Customs Authorities to detain the consignment. The paragraph 3 of the C.G.O. No,15 of 1989 is as under:-- "Customs House shall not allow transshipment in cases where the party to be notified on the Bill of Lading is based at Karachi or the marks and numbers on the Bill of Lading do not indicate upcountry destination."
15. The mark on the Bill of Lading shows that the destination of transshipment is Karachi. It is not indicated that it had upcountry destination although the importer is based at Lahore. The Bill of Lading has to be a through Bill of Lading if the delivery was to be made at Lahore.
16. ' In view of these reasons the decision of this Court reported in 1992 CLC 57 cannot be made applicable to this case. Apart from this fact there are some-other facts also which suggest that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The indent Annexure 'A' Bill of Lading Annexure 'B' mentioned the consignment as Duplex Board. The petitioner is reported to have miss- described the consignment and therefore, Assistant Collector of Customs issued show-cause notice to respondent No,4 on 4-9-1994. The date is relevant because respondent No,4 through his letter dated 17-10-1994 requested for amendment in the entry made in the Import Manifest. This fact is admitted in paragraph 3 of the petition, wherein it is admitted that a proper request for amendment/entry in the Import manifest was made and the consignment in question had arrived on 28-8-1994. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 in last four lines of para. 5 of their counter-affidavit have stated that the petitioner had deliberately misdeclared the description of the goods in the Import General Manifest in order to evade Government dues. Thus the intention of the petitioner was to evade Government dues by misdescribing the Duplex Board as waste paper. The consignment was examined by Customs Authorities on 5-9-1994 but request for amendment of import manifest was filed on 17-10-1994. Had this not been detected there would have been request for amendment of the Import Manifest. These facts indicate that in order to evade Government dues, the consignment was mis-described and after it way detected, the petitioner tried to change, his stand. The order of Deputy Collector of Customs Appraisement-I dated 15-6-1995 which has been produced as Annexure 'H' with counter-affidavit, also discusses this aspect. The seventh paragraph of this order is as under:-- "I have examined the record of the case and heard Mr. Saleem. From the perusal of the record it appears that the party has imported prime quality goods and declared the same as waste paper both in the I.G.M. As well as in the T.P. Filed by them for Lahore Dry Port. The contention of the importers that they had no intention to misdeclare the contents of the goods therefore does not seem correct. Had there not been any mala fide intention on their part they would have declared the value as per I.T.P. As against the on declared by them. This proves that the goods were misdeclared with the intention of hoodwinking the Government to evade revenue at the place of destination. The violation of sections 16 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(i) the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 therefore stand established. The goods are therefore confiscated under clauses (9) and (14) of section 156(i) of the Customs Act, 1969. However keeping in view that the goods are otherwise freely importable - a lenient view is taken in terms of section 181 ibid and owners of-the goods are given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine equal to 25% (twenty-five per cent.) of the ascertained value of the offending goods in addition to payment of normal duty/taxes leviable thereon."
17. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner misdeclared the consignment with the intention to deprive the Government of legitimate dues. This act on his part disentitles him to relief from this Court.
18. There are quite a few decisions of the superior Courts on this point that whoever comes to High Court to' seek relief has to satisfy the conscience of the Court that he has clean hands (1990 MLD page 2192). The High Court will not grant relief under this article when the petitioner, does not come to the Court with clean hands (PLD 1989 SC page 516). Thus it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.