' The brief facts culminating in the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner who is the Chairman and Chief Executive of Aftab (Pvt.) Limited Imported a Mercedes Benz Car of C.F.R. Value of D.M. 73, 525 from Germany. It was shipped from Hamburg Germany through "Huai Ingrita" in March, 1995 and the same arrived at Mughalpura, Lahroe Dry Port in April, 1995. It was claimed that the petitioner was entitled to the concession in Custom Duty permissible to him in terms of S.R.O.No,873(1)/92, dated 19-8-1992 read with S.R.O.No,518(1)/94. The petitioner approached the relevant custom authorities to grant the concession. Vide Letter No, C.No,V-CUS-MV129/CFS/95/216, dated 4-2-1997 it was stated that the case has been thoroughly examined and the petitioner was not found entitled to the benefit of S.R.O.No783(1)/92, therefore, it was regretted that the request could not be acceded to. Aggrieved by this refusal the petitioner moved the instant Writ Petition before this court. As per para. No,2 of the petition, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No,4832 of 1996 before this court assailing the decision of the respondent dated 18-10-1995 not extending the benefit of S.R.O. No,783(1)/92, dated 11-12-1992. A direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by affording full opportunity of hearing and to submit relevant documents in support of his claim. The petitioner stated to have submitted the relevant documents in his support but the respondents showed their inability to accede to the prayer. By turning down the request the petitioner had been called upon to pay the Custom Duty as has been levied on the Car by the respondents.
3. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 5-3-1997 and on 3-4-1997 the respondents were directed to release the Car provided the petitioner pays the Taxes and other dues as assessed in terms of the S.R.O. And furnishes indemnity bond in favour of Collector Customs, Lahore. In reply to the writ petition in answer to para. No,4 whereby the respondents have been asked to grant concession of the Duty it was stated as under:- ' "The benefit of SRO 783(1)/94, dated 11-1,2-1994 was denied on two solid grounds. Firstly the S.R.O. In question allows the benefit to the individual importer whereas the vehicle had been imported in the name of a firm i,e, Aftab (Private) LTD. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad had raised the same objection and refused to extend the benefit of the said S.R.O. Vide Letter C.No,2(15)Tar-11/92 pt, dated 18-10-1995. Secondly, the pivotal requirement of the S.R.O. 783(1)/92 had not been fulfilled by the importer. Under this SRO, the Government has exempted import of vehicles from duty and taxes subject to the condition that amount of foreign exchange in US Dollars has been remitted through regular banking channels and the importer produced certificate from the Bank in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Bank of Pakistan from time to time to the effect that the requisite amount of foreign exchange has been remitted by him through such bank as 'Home Remittance'. The State Bank of Pakistan vide Letter No . FEL(C)/114/19-Comfil/96, dated 8- 3-1996 had conveyed."... ... ...The amount of both the said transaction were not remitted from abroad through normal banking channels as 'Home Remittance'.
4. It was, therefore, observed that since the requisite amount of foreign exchange was not remitted by Aftab (Private) Ltd. Through normal banking channels as Home Remittance, the benefit of S.R.O.
In question could not be extended.
5. The petitioner has raised the contention that the objection by the respondents on the ground that State Bank did not permit import of Vehicle by a Company and the concession could be granted only if the vehicle is imported by an individual is not tenable. According to him the company, may be public or private, is a juristic person in the eyes of law and, therefore, no distinction can be drawn in between a private individual and a juristic person which too is a person in the eyes of law. The objection, therefore, is not sustainable. However, the main ground of assail is that the SRO 783(1)/92 is not being properly interpreted and a restricted meaning have been assigned to the phraseology as used in the S.R.O. To properly comprehend and interpret the S.R.O.
No,783(1)/92, dated 19-8-1992, the same is reproduced as under:- "S.R.O.783(.1)/92.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 of the Customs Act. 1969 (IV of 1969). Subsection (1) of section 13 of the Sales Tax Act. 1990, and subsection (2) of section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985 (I of 1985), the Federal Government is pleased to exempt import of vehicle specified in column (3) of the table below. From whole of customs duty leviable under the first schedule to the Customs Act, 1969(IV of 1969) sales tax and Iqra surcharge subject to the condition that the amount of foreign exchange in US dollar specified in column (2) of table below has been remitted through the regular banking channels and the importer produced certificate from the bank in accordance with the instructions issued by State Bank of Pakistan from time to time to the effect that the requisite amount of foreign exchange has been remitted by him through such bank as home remittance."
6. Vide S.R.O. 518(1)/94, the Federal Government incorporated the following amendments:- "In the aforesaid Notification.-. (a) In the preamble.--
(i) the words, brackets, figures, commas and letter, ' subsection (1) of section 13 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and subsection (2) of section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985(1 of 1985)', shall be omitted;
(ii) for the words 'whole of customs-duty' the words, figures, letters 'so much of the Customs Duty as is in excess of 15% advance shall be substituted' ; and
(iii) the words and comma 'sales tax and Iqra surcharge', shall be omitted."
7. The learned counsel has argued with vehemence that in order to interpret and comprehend this S.R.O. We have to consider the concession extended by this notification by keeping in view the provisions and the rationale behind the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992. By reference to the preamble that the enactment was enforced to provide protection to economic reforms which have been detailed in the pre-amble i,e, to create a liberal environment for savings and investments, and other matters relating thereto . Since a number of economic reforms have been introduced and are in process of being introduced to achieve the said object and with a view to provide legal protection to these reforms in order to create confidence in the establishment and continuity of the liberal economic environment, the Act was enforced on 28th of July, 1992. Section 3 of the Act has to take effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, Customs Act, 1969, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and other laws for the time being in force. Under section 4. All citizens of Pakistan resident in Pakistan or outside Pakistan became entitled to bring, hold, sell, transfer and take out the foreign exchange within or out of Pakistan. Section 5 provides immunities to foreign currency accounts from any enquiry, checking or serutiny while sections 6, 7, and 8 provide protection to fiscal incentives for setting up of industries, protection of transfer of ownership to private sector and protection of foreign and Pakistani investment respectively. The learned counsel, therefore, has argued with vehemence and laid special emphasis on the rationale behind the Notification. It has been argued that the intention of the Government is to attract the foreign exchange into the country to provide stability to the economy. To encourage flow of foreign exchange into Pakistan various incentives, protections and facilities were provided. The main purpose is to extend the facilities and grant concession to the persons who bring into the country foreign exchange and thereafter, get the same converted into Pakistani currency which in technical terms is called "Home Remittance". The petitioner got encashed 697,688.10 US $ on 28-11-1994 and another sum of 2,033,423.00 US $ on 20-12-1994. Thus by convening 2,731,112.00 US $ into Pakistani currency the petitioner is entitled to the concession envisaged 'by the S.R.O. It is a matter of common knowledge that the official price of the Dollar in Pakistani Rupee is less than the price on which the dollar can be sold in the open market. Obviously the idea was that if the amount is brought into country through Banks and getting encashed into Pakistani currency, the Government would have received foreign exchange and accounts may be kept and maintained in Pakistani currency. The moment the dollars are exchanged into Pakistani currency they cannot be taken back or expatriated out of the country. The petitioner to support his claim produced certificate from the City Bank certifying that the aforesaid amount of more than 2.5. Million dollars was got encashed.
8. In view of the encashment of US $ into Pakistani currency the petitioner, according to him sacrificed a huge amount of Pakistani money. Considering that the official rate of the dollar and the rate in the open market had a suostantial difference. According to the S.R.O. 783(1)/92, as per item No,5 in column No,2, anybody who remits foreign exchange of value of 2.5 Million US $ and produces a certificate from bank in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Bank of Pakistan can import a car upto Engine capacity of 2000 CC. The petitioner who had brought more than 2.5 Million US $ and got them encashed was entitled to import the car without payment of Custom Duty and other allied charges as mentioned in the Notification. The respondents, therefore, have erred in claiming the Custom Duty from the petitioner. According to the learned counsel intent and purpose of the S.R.O. Is to bring into Pakistan the foreign exchange and the word remittance through regular Banking channel is not of much significance. The foreign exchange is remitted through banking channels or otherwise brought into Pakistan and got encahsed the benefit which will accrue to the Government would be the same. Since the benefit accrues to Government and the importer incurred loss, therefore, he is entitled to the concession as permitted by the S.R.O. The custom authorities as well as State Bank of Pakistan, according to him have erroneously insisted on the mode of remittance through regular banking channels. The word regular banking channel has to be read with the word through such bank as home remittance. The main purpose of bringing foreign exchange is in fact its home remittance which means that instead of keeping the account in foregin exchange the same should be converted into Pakistani currency so that the same cannot be taken out of the country. According to the petitioner the loss accrue to him for getting more than 2.5 Million dollars encashed is more than the Customs Duty to be paid on the vehicle. As the petitioner has foregone the profit which he could receive, he should be allowed the concession and .The Custom Duty should not be levied on the vehicle. If a concession is not extended then the same would tantamount to negating or withholding the incentive provided by Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992. In support of his contention he has cited case "Commissioner of Income Tax, ,Karachi v. Khatija Begum, Partner, Shakil Impex, Karachi"
(1965 PTD 540), wherein it was observed that:-- "The words of a statute, when there is doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature had in view."
' It was further observed that:-- "It is a well-established principle that the provisions relating to imposition of tax are to be construed strictly and that if two interpretations are possible the one that favours the tax-payer must be adopted."
' He has also referred to a view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case titled "Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt.), Ltd, Lahore, v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad" (PLD 1998 Lah, 90). It was observed by their Lordships in Para. Nos.15 and 17 of the Judgment as under:- "15. It need not be emphasised that with rapid developments in the field of trade, commerce and communication and with modern technology the world itself has become a global village and no country can prosper in isolation of others. Presently there is an ongoing fierce competition among various developed countries to attract foreign investment for the purpose of development. In such a situation the importance of creating a liberal environment to encourage in flow of foreign currency cannot be under stated.
16. It will be seen from the above that protection of economic Reforms Act, 1992 was promulgated pursuant to the Policy of the Federal Government to protect various economic reforms undertaken by it in order to provided incentives to investors and to encourage inflow of foreign currency into Pakistan. While interpreting such a law relating to economic matters the Courts should so far as possible adopt that interpretation which furthers the object for which the same has been promulgated."
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further supplemented his submissions by drawing analogy by referring to the Sales Tax Act, 1990, Customs Act. 1985 and Finance Act, 1985 etc. Canvassing that the main stress to be on the question of bringing foreign exchange into the country and its home remittance, so that the benefit may accrue to the foreign reserves of Pakistan.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had argued that imposition of Customs Duty is the right of the Government and no importer can claim concession as a matter of right.
Further, submits that when an act is to be performed in a specific manner the same has to be done in that manner and not otherwise. He has referred to the contents of S.R.O. And submitted that respondents as well as the State Bank of Pakistan were justified in not acceding to the request of the petitioner as he did not strictly comply with the conditions and provisions of the S.R.O. He is therefore, of the view that no illegality or violation of any of the law or regulation has been committed.
11. Respectfully following the law enunciated in case titled "CIT v. Khatija Begum" by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court and the Hydabiya Engineering case, there is no cavil with the proposition that the words of a statute have to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature had in view, also that it is well established principle that the provisions relating to imposition of tax are to be construed strictly and that if two interpretations are possible the one that favours the tax-payer must be adopted.
The observation made by their Lordships in "Hudabiya Engineering case" explains and elucidates the purpose for which Economic Reforms Act was enacted and incentives were provided to attract the foreign investments for the development of the country. But considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the case of the petitioner stands on all together different premises. Admittedly the conditions prescribed by the S.R.O. To claim concession have not been followed. According to the S.R.O, the foreign exchange has to be remitted through regular banking channels whereas in the present case the same has not been done. According to the learned counsel the same is not material and significant. Since the foreign exchange stand converted into Pakistani currency he is entitled to the concession and waiver of the Customs Duty. As already noted the main thrust of arguments is that what benefit accrues to the petitioner by getting the foreign exchange converted into Pakistani currency, if the custom duty is not waived. The argument has fallacies. The benefit and immunities provided by Protettion of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 are important incentives provided to a citizen. As per section 5 of this Act any person who holds foreign currency accounts shall continue to enjoy the immunities against any enquiry from Income Tax Department or any other taxation authority as to the source of financing of the foreign currency accounts. Further the balances in foreign currency accounts and income therefrom shall continue to remain exempted from the levy of wealth tax, income tax and compulsory deduction of Zakat at source. Further, the banks shall maintain complete secrecy in respect of transactions in the foregin currency accounts. Similar protection is provided under sections 6, 7 and 8 of this Act. These immunities and protections cannot be considered or treated as inadequate of insufficient incentives to a foreign exchange holder. Relevant facilities, immunities and protections are contained in the Act itself and it would be unjust and improper to carry or import the benefit to any other statute, rule or notification. Paying of Customs Duty is a liability of an Importer. The concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right. If a concession is claimed then the requirements to claim that concession have to be fulfilled: The Government or the State Bank of Pakistan in best of their wisdom issued the S.R.O. In question and have laid down unequivocally and unambiguously that the amount of foreign exchange has to be remitted through regular banking channels and the Importer was to produce a certificate from the Bank in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Bank of Pakistan. To frame a policy and prescribe a procedure is the prerogative of the Government. What policy has to be formulated and what procedure are prescribed, the same are not ordinarily interferred unless found to be in conflict with law, some right or wholly unreasonable. The main ground urged by the learned counsel was lack of rationale in the procedure but the same has not been found of much substance. It has been laid down by the Privy Council in "Nazir Ahmed v. The King Emperor" case (ILR 1936 Privy Council, Lahore Series 629) that:- "It is a well-recognised rule of construction that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all--other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden."
Similar view was taken in E.A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf" (PLD 1964 SC 536) that a certain thing which is intended to be done in a specific manner the same must be done in that manner. Since the petitioner has although got foreign currency/dollars converted into Pakistani currency and as such fulfilled the condition of Home remittance yet he did not fulfil the condition that the remittance has to be made through regular banking channel, therefore, the respondents are justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession provided or envisaged by S.R.O. No, 783(1)/92 read with S.R.O. No,518(1)/94. The petition, therefore fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Considering that important question of law was involved therein, there will be no order as to costs.