' This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 5-6-1993 passed by. The Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Central Board of Revenue, Karachi whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 196 of Customs Act, 1969 was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner imported ammunition comprising of 22 rifle cartridges super X USA, Made Winchester from Messrs W.M.S. Warenhandels GMBH, Elmshorn West Germany. The letter of credit was established through Deutsche Bank AG, Lahore, for US $ 1065 on the strength of an import licence issued to the petitioner by the Controller of Imports and Exports, Government of Pakistan, Lahore.
3. That on arrival of the imported consignment in July, 1988 a bill of entry alongwith other invoices was filed with the Assistant Collector, Custom Dry Port, Mughalpura, Lahore and customs duty amounting to Rs,43,856 was deposited by the petitioner. On 4-12-1988 respondent No,3 issued a demand-cum-show-cause notice to the petitioner for 'received of Rs,48,063 on the ground of under valuation. The petitioner received notice on 14-12-1988. The case put up by the petitioner in his writ is that before the receipt of the notice on 11-12-1988 the petitioner had filed a claim for refund of the excess amount paid for the said consignment before respondent No,3 as according to him the consignment was arbitrarily and unilaterally made at the rate of DM105 per thousand pieces as against the invoice price of US $10 per thousand pieces.
4. That various dates were fixed for hearing when respondent No,3 on 18-14989 issued a corrigendum mentioning therein that "the reasons for short payment in the show-cause notice may be read as miscalculation instead of under valuation". The petitioner in reply contended that through the corrigendum completely new case was being set up by the department and it constituted a notice de novo., As the date of corrigendum was 18-1-1989, therefore, the claim of the department was barred by time. The respondent No,3 after hearing passed an order in original on 24-3-1991 whereby the plea of the petitioner was rejected. It was also observed that during the audit scrutiny it was observed that the petitioner had imported 72000 cartridges for 22 bore rifle which was evident from his own declaration on Invoice No,PN-I-052-88, dated 7-3-1988 but while calculating duty and taxes instead of 72000 figure of 27000 was taken which led to short assessm ent to the tune of Rs,48,063. Further, it was held that corrigendum was not a fresh notice it was merely an amendment in the original show-cause notice which was issued on 4-12-1988 as such" it was within time as provided under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969.
5. The petitioner challenged the order in original through an appeal. The Collector of Appeal Northern Zone, Lahore accepted the appeal vide his order, dated 13-6-1991 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Custom. The petitioner challenged the order of Collector Appeal through a revision. The revision of the petitioner was accepted and the remand order was set aside and the Collector of Appeal was directed by the Revisional Authority to decide the appeal afresh. The Collector of Appeal after hearing the parties decided the appeal of the petitioner afresh and vide his order, dated 2-1-1993 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Again the petitioner filed a second revision petition before the Government of Pakistan which was heard and decided by the Additional Secretary, C.B.R., Government of Pakistan, Karachi vide his order, dated 5-6-1993 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. This order is impugned through the present writ petition.
6. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the corrigendum constituted a notice de novo as the basis of the show-cause notice were completely changed. The original show-cause notice which according to the learned counsel was within time, related to the under valuation whereas through the corrigendum, dated 18-1-1989 under valuation was changed into miscalculation. It was submitted by the learned counsel that under valuation and miscalculation are two distinct grounds. According to him there was no show-cause notice on the ground of miscalculation before 18-1-1989, therefore, the date of the notice was required to be taken as 18-1-1989 for computing the period of six months. Raising of any demand against the petitioner after six months was barred by time.
7. Learned counsel for the Revenue supported the order in original as well as orders passed by the Collector and the Government.
8. After hearing the parties and perusal' of record I do not find myself in agreement with the petitioner. The notice under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 was issued to the petitioner on 14-12-1988. It is provided under sub-clause (3) of section 32 that whereby reasons o any advertence, error or misconstruction, any duty, or charge has not been levied or has been shortlevied or has been erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay any amount on that account shall be served with a notice within six months of the relevant date requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. Admittedly this notice was issued to the petitioner within a period of six months if the date is taken from 4-12-1988 the corrigendum dated 18-1-1989 merely substituted the expression under valuation with that of miscalculation. The corrigendum could not be construed as notice de novo. Admittedly the petitioner imported 72000 cartridges of 22 bore and paid the duties and taxes on 27000 cartridges. This error in calculating the duties was either an innocent error or a deliberate mistake but the fact remains that petitioner instead of making the payment of duties for 72000 cartridges paid the duties only on 27000 cartridges. The observation of the department was that this error was not deliberate, therefore, they rectified the original show-cause notice by substituting misdeclaration with miscalculation.
The respondent-department was well within its right to rectify and amend its original notice. There is no substance in the pleas raised by the petitioner. The petitioner is not allowed to make any capital from a bona fide error in calculation. As such I am not inclined to interfere in the instant case and hold that the writ petition has no merit.
' Accordingly the same is dismissed.