1. ' These Revision Applications bearing Nos.58/2000, 59/2000, 60/2000, 61/2000, 62/2000, 63/2000, 64/2000, 65/2000, 66/2000, 67/2000, 68/2000, 69/2000. 70/2000, 71/2000, 72/2000, 73/2000, 74/2000, 75/2000, 76/2000 and 77/2000 are directed against the orders passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Karachi involving the same grounds, point of law and similar facts are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.
2. ' Proceedings giving rise to in Revision Application No,58 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1111 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West.
3. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Ceptral Board of Revenue vide C.Go. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No, 76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty draw back claitil SR-2 No,3767 dated 9-1-1995 for Rs,333,327 under S.R.O. No, 682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1508/95/B.G/Exp dated 24-4-1995.
4. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated. 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 2-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1111 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty draw back already sanctioned. That order dated 24- 4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E. Circular 76 of 1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,81 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C.
5. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi, West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No,81 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
6. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,59 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1112 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
7. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO No, 12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty draw back claim SR-2 No,57763 dated 22-11-1993 for Rs,238,873 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1158/95/B.G/Exp, dated 18-4-1995.
8. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 25-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1112 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24- 4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under F.E. Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-2) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,85/1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide Order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9, read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No,85 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
9. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,60 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1113 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West, respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,5058. Dated 11-1-1995 for Rs,377,593 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,15-8/95/B.G/Exp dated 24-4-1995.
10. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 2-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1113 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24- 4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E. Circular 76/1992 to 'invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,84 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9, read with section 151, C.P.C.
11. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 84/1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
12. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,61 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1114 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West.
13. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,5058 dated 11-1-1995 for Rs,377,593 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1508/95/B.G/Exp dated 24-4-1995.
14. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial) Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 2-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1114 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24- 4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76 of 1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,83 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C.
15. Was moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 83 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
16. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,62 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1115 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
17. Respondent claimed to be a leading Exporter of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No, 12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,3769 dated 9-1-1995 for Rs,362,618 under SRO No,682(1)/93 dated 9-1-1995 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1508/95/B.G/Exp dated 24-4-1995.
18. Respondents claim that no show cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 2-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1115 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24- 4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E. Circular 76 of 1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,82 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree were dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9, read with section 151, C.P.C.
19. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West in C.A. No, 82 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
20. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,63 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1116 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
21. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,57768 dated 22-1-1993 for Rs,336,263 under SRO No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against bank certificate in lieu of bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1170/95/B.G/Exp dated 13-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order in original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A Revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 25-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1116 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24-4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned 111rd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,80 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9 rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 80 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
22. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,64 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1117 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
23. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,19514 dated 16-2-1994 for Rs,323,863 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1170/95/B.G/Exp dated 13-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 25-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1117 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24-4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act. 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E.
24. Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,79 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi,
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by he learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West in C.A. No, 81 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
25. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,65 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1118 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
26. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,115616 dated 29-9-1994 for Rs,362,010 under SRO No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1170/95/B.G/Exp dated 13-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order in original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 25-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1118 of 1997 on the ground that the same were pissed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24-4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E.
27. Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 78 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 78 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
28. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,66 of 2000 .Were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1119 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
29. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,115613 dated 29-9-1994 for Rs,361,784 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Expd?t) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1119 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent- of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15-3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E.
30. Circular 76 of 1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 87 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9, read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, West in C.A. No, 81 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
31. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,67 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1120 of 1997 by present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
32. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-1171992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,128382 dated 3-10-1994 for Rs,361,847 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G./Exp dated 15-3-1995.
33. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide other dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1120 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15- 3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E. Circular 76 of 1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil -Ridge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,86 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9, read with section 151, C.P.C.
34. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 86 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
35. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,68 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1121 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
36. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,133376 dated 10-11-1994 for Rs,361,823 under S.R.O. No,682(I)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 20-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1121 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondents of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15-3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E.
37. Circular 76 of 1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,88 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 88 of 1998 dated, 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
38. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No,69 of 2000 were initiated by 'the institution of Suit No,1122 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
39. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Coth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,3764 dated 9-1-1995 for Rs,352,336 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1094/95/B.G/Exp dated 24-4-1995.
40. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 25-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1122 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24- 4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E. Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 89 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C.
41. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 89 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
42. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No, 70 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1123 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
43. Respondents claimed to be leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,57767 dated 22-11-1993 for Rs,319,725 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advance. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995.
44. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1123 of 1999 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondents of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15- 3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 90 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C.
45. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No,90 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
46. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No, 71 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1124 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
47. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,115613 dated 29-9-1994 for Rs,361,384 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1124 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15-3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 91 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 91 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
48. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No, 72 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1125 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
49. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,128382, dated 30-10-1994 for Rs,361.200 under S.R.O. No,682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No, 1125 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondents of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15-3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,, 92 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 92 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
50. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No, 73 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1126 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
51. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No, 12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No, 8623 dated 22-1-1994 for Rs,311,075 under S.R.O. No, 682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1126 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15-3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 93 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge. Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 93 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
52. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No, 74 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1127 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
53. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No, 12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,120341 dated 12-10-1994 for Rs,361,771 under S.R.O. No, 682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1994 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No:1127 of 1977 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15-3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E.
54. Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 94 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 94 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
55. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No, 75 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No, 1128 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
56. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. N'o. 12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-20 No,137298 dated 22-11-1994 for Rs,361,873 under S.R.O. No, 682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1590/95/B.G/Exp dated 24-4-1995. Respondent claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 25-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1128 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24-4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,95 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree Was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 95 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
57. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision Application No, 76 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No, 1129 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West.
58. Respondents claimed to be a leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No,59434 dated 25-11-1995 for Rs,259,902 under S.R.O. No, 682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,498/95/B.G/Exp dated 15-3-1995. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 29-1-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1129 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 15-3-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No,96 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi
(West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-West in C.A. No, 96 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
59. ' Proceedings giving rise to Revision-Application No, 77 of 2000 were initiated by the institution of Suit No,1130 of 1997 by the present respondents in the Court of IIIrd Senior Judge, Karachi-West.
60. Respondents claimed to be leading Exporters of Yarn and Cloth and in pursuance to concession granted by the Central Board of Revenue vide C.GO. No,12 dated 14-11-1992 read with the Foreign Exchange Circular No,76 dated 9-9-1992 issued by the State Bank of Pakistan filed duty drawback claim SR-2 No, 150139 dated 22-11-1994 for Rs,362,585 under S.R.O. No, 682(1)/93 dated 10-8-1993 promulgated under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969 against Bank certificate in lieu of Bank credit advice. Petitioners issued order-in-original No,1508/95/B.G./Exp dated 24-4-1995.
61. Respondents claim that no show-cause notice was issued before passing of this order. Appeal preferred by the respondents against the order-in-original was dismissed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement and Export) vide order dated 4-12-1995. A revision application against the order in appeal dated 4-12-1995 was dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad vide order dated 2-2-1997. These orders were challenged in Suit No,1111 of 1997 on the ground that the same were passed illegally, arbitrarily and with mala fide intention depriving the respondent of the duty drawback already sanctioned. That order dated 24- 4-1995 was in violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and with mala fide. That petitioner had no authority under E.E Circular 76/1992 to invoke section 202(1-A) of Customs Act, 1969. Suit was decreed in favour of respondents by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-1998. Civil Appeal No, 97 of 1998 filed by petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karachi (West) against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed for non- prosecution vide order, dated 4-1-1999. Application under Order 9, rule 9 read with section' 151, C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners before the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi-West was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10-10-1999. Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge; Karachi-West in C.A. No, 97 of 1998 dated 10-10-1999 dismissing the application for restoration.
62. ' The valuation of the suit and prayer in all the suits are similar. The plaintiffs (respondents in this revision) have prayed as follows:--
(1) To declare that the 'order dated 24-4-1995 passed by the defendant No,1 is illegal, unlawful and nullity in the eyes of law and based on mala fides.
(2) To direct the defendant jointly and severally to refund the amount of duty drawback already paid to the plaintiff but has been recovered from the pending duty drawback claim vide order dated 24-4-1995 passed by defendant No, 1.
(3) Cost of the suit be also awarded to the plaintiff.
(4) Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
63. ' In view of the detailed arguments at length advanced by the learned counsel it was decided to admit and finally dispose of these applications by this order.
64. ' Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate on behalf of the applicants has argued that the proceedings before the trial Court are ab initio void and without jurisdiction. The proceedings were filed before the trial Court was mala fide intentions without disclosing the correct facts and all subsequent proceedings are also a nullity in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has argued that the Customs Act is a special law enacted for the purpose of regulating the levy and collection of customs duty. For this purpose and other allied matters the Customs Act No,(IV of 1969) provides a complete board together with the mechanism for redress of grievances. Learned counsel has cited the various provisions providing for appeals and revisions as amended from time to time. These are dealt in Chapter 19 of the Customs Act which covers sections 193 to 196-J.
65. ' Section 193 provides for an appeal to the Collector and is reproduced as under:-- "193. Appeals to Collector (Appeals).--(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a Collector of Customs (other than a notice of demand served under section 202) may appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within thirty days of the communication to him of such decision or order: Provided that an appeal filed after the expiry of thirty days may be admitted by Collector (Appeals) if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within that period.
(2) An appeal under this section shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf."
66. ' The procedure for the conduct of appeal is laid down in section 193-A. In addition a further remedy is provided by way of an appeal against an order passed by the Collector under sections 193, 195 or as an Adjudicating Authority. The constitution of the Appellate Tribunal and the qualifications of its Members are provided under section 194 of the Customs Act and are reproduced hereunder; -- '
194. Appellate Tribunal.--(1)---The Federal Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal to be called the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal consisting of as many judicial and technical members as it thinks fit to exercise the powers and discharge the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by this Act.
(2) A Judicial Member shall be a person who is a Judge of a High Court or who has for a period of not less than five years exercised the powers of a District Judge and is qualified to be a Judge of High Court or who is or has been an Advocate of High Court and is qualified to be a Judge of High Court.
(3) A Technical Member shall be an officer of Customs and Excise Group equivalent in rank to that of a Member, Central Board of Revenue.
(4) The Federal Government shall appoint one of the members of the Appellate Tribunal to be the Chairman thereof.
(5) The terms and conditions of appointment of the Chairman and Judicial and Technical Members shall be such as the Federal Government may determine: ' Provided that where a Judge of High Court is appointed as the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal his terms and conditions shall be the same as those of Judges of the High Court."
67. ' Sections 194-B and 194-C laid down the conditions as to the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the detailed procedure to be followed by the Appellate Tribunal, the constitutional benches and special bench, decision in case of difference of opinion, sittings and the power to regulate its procedure and that of the benches including the places at which the benches shall hold their sittings.
68. ' Powers exercised by the Collector of Customs and in revision by the Federal Government under sections 195 and 195-A respectively are also subject to appeal. Section 196 of the Customs Act provides for an appeal to High Court and appeal to Supreme Court is provided under section 196-E of the Act. The above provisions were not contained in the Customs Act as originally enacted. It was by subsequent amendments made in the Customs Act, from time to time that these Special Tribunals, were created. The result of these amendments is the creation of a complete set-up of Special Tribunal as discussed above and providing for the ultimate remedy by way of appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is with this background that to avoid that on coming into operation of a complete set-up that appropriate protection is provided. This change has been effected by an amendment in section 217 of the Customs Act. This section initially barred any suit or legal proceedings done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance to the Act or any rules.
69. To this section sub section (2) has been added and section 217, as amended, reads as under:-- "217(1). No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the (Federal Government) or any public servant for anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of this Act or the rules.
(2) No suit shall be brought in any Civil Court to set aside or modify any order passed, any assessm ent made, any tax levied, any penalty imposed or collection of any tax made under this Act."
70. ' Learned counsel has argued that as a complete structure for seeking the redress of grievances has been provided, the Civil Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction are not empowered to entertain any matter falling within the scope of the powers and functions to be carried on by the Appellate Authority under the above provisions of the Customs Act and protected under section 217 of the said Act and a suit is not maintainable against the orders and acts performed by officers of the Customs in the exercise of their powers under the provisions of the Customs Act as it is a special enactment and also provides for appropriate relief his right up to the stage of the High Court and Supreme Court. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550, Messrs World Trade Corporation v. C.B.R. And others 1999 PTD 2341, Saleem Automotive Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. C.B.R. And others 2000 MLD 25, Messrs Chemitex Industries Ltd., Karachi v.
71. Superintendent of Sales Tax and 3 others, 1999 PTD 1184, Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited through Company Secretary v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others, 1999 MLD 1925, Commissioner of Income-tax, Companies-II and another v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf), Karachi PLD 1992 SC 847, Al Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29, Income-tax Officer and others v. Messrs Chappal. Builders 1993 SCMR 118, Haji Rehmdil v. The Province of Balochistan and another 1999 SCMR 1060, Khalid Mehmood v.
72. Collector of Customs, Custom House, Lahore, 1999 ' SCMR 1881, Ali Memon Welfare Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Barkat Ali Issani and 2 others 1993 SCMR page 1978.
73. ' Mr. Mazhar Lari, Advocate for the respondents has vehemently opposed their petitions. His contention is that the trial Court passed the judgment and decree. In exercise of its power as the action of the Customs Officer was mala fide.. The orders passed by the Customs Officials were in furtherance of their mala fide intentions without notice and was liable to be set aside. Appeal preferred against the original judgment and decree in the Court of the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West was barred by section 5 of the Limitation Act. Even the application for restoration was filed after delay inasmuch as limitation application was filed after a period of three months. In the absence of any cogent reasons the appeal was liable to be dismissed. That the applicant failed to make out any plausible case in appeal. The order is valid and legal that does not call for any interference at this stage.
74. ' Mr. Mazhar Lari, Advocate has also moved applications pertaining to the dates of presentation and signature and has argued that the same constitutes contempt of Court. He has referred to the details mentioned in the said applications and also to the record of the learned Appellate Court in this regard.
75. On perusal of the record, after hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel, the acts of filing appeals before the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad is admitted fact.
76. It is the action of the plaintiffs by institution of the respective suits which is alleged to be the main cause of grievance of the applicants on the ground that after following the course as provided under the ,provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, the respondents could not deviate from that course as provided under the law and could have pursued their claims before the High Court and thereafter even up to the Supreme Court as the hierarchy of forums is provided under the law, which in the instant case is provided order sections 194-A, 196 and 196-E of the Customs Act, 1969.
77. However, the respondents instead of following their remedy available under the Customs Act and instead of approaching the forums available under the law initiated fresh proceedings ab initio before the learned trial Court. Such practice has been discouraged by the apex Court in the case of .Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) (PLD 1992 SC 847) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as follows:- "Before parting with the judgment we may observe that in cases where any party resorts to a statutory remedy against an order he cannot abandon or bypass it without any valid and reasonable cause and file Constitution petition challenging the same order.
78. ' Such practice, in cases where statute provides alternate and efficacious remedy up to High Court, cannot be approved or encouraged. In a recent judgment of this Court in C.A. No,79-K of 1991, one of us (Ajmal Mian, J.), in similar situation observed as follows:--- ' We may now revert to the question, whether the appellant was justified to file above Constitution petition against the order of the Tribunal instead of invoking section 136 of the Ordinance for making a reference to the High Court. According to Mr. Rehan Naqvi, a reference under the above provision would not have been adequate and efficacious remedy as it would have taken years before it could have been heard. The same could be true for a Constitution petition.
79. ' The tendency to bypass the remedy provided under the relevant statute and to press into service Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court has developed lately, which is to be discouraged.
80. However, in certain cases invoking of Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court instead of availing of remedy provided for under the relevant statute may be justified, for example when the impugned order/action is plapably without jurisdiction and/or mala fide. To force an aggrieved person in such a case to approach the forum provided under the relevant statute may not be just and proper.
81. ' In the present case, the appellant had opted to avail the hierarchy of forums provided for under the Ordinance up to the stage of filing of appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, it would have been proper on the part of the appellant to have invoked section 136 of the Ordinance for making a reference to the High Court instead of filing a Constitutional petition. In our view, once a party opts to invoke the remedies provided for under the relevant statute, he cannot at his sweet-will over to Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court the mid of the proceeding in the absence of any compelling and justifiable reason."
82. ' In Al Ahram Builders' case (1993 SCMR 29) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-- "In the present case, the appellant had opted to avail of the hierarchy of forums provided for under the Ordinance up to the stage of filing of appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, it would have been proper on the part of the appellant to have invoked section 136 of the Ordinance for making a reference to the High Court instead of filing a Constitutional petition. In our view, once a party opts to invoke the remedies provided for under the relevant statute, he cannot at his sweet-will switch over to Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the mid of the proceeding in the absence of any compelling and justifiable reason,"
83. I am in respectful agreement with the above view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the suits instituted before the trial Court were ab initio without jurisdiction and not maintainable as the applicants in those suits and respondents opted to avail the forums provided under the Customs Act, 1969 and in the present case had referred the matter before the Departmental Authorities and pursued their remedy and on their approaching the concerned authority, the Authorities had already exercised their jurisdiction under the provisions of Customs Act, 1969 after which the jurisdiction to hear the appeal lies with the Customs Tribunal under section 194 and in the High Court under section 196 and before the Supreme Court under section 196-E of the Customs Act, 1969 and constitutes a case calling for setting aside the impugned judgments under provision of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
84. ' In view of the above position the proceedings were ab initio without jurisdiction and all subsequent orders, judgments and actions are of no legal effect. Accordingly these revision applications are allowed with no orders as to costs. The orders passed by the learned Appellate Court and the trial Court are set aside in the above cases and the listed applications are dismissed.