JUDGMENT S. AHMED SARWANA, J.- The brief facts relating to is Petition are that the Federal Government, in order to romote the export of indigenous products from the country, allowed certain reliefs and incentives to the public-at-large by granting exemptions from the payment of customs duty and sales tax chargeable on the import of certain raw materials and components specified in SRO 671 (l)/94, dated 3rd July, 1994. The petitioner relying upon the aforesaid Notification pened Letters of Credit for import of raw materials for manufacture of electric cables and other components to be applied against international tenders, It is alleged that the etters of Credit were opened before 29.10.1995 and the goods had already arrived in Pakistan by that date.
Meanwhile, Central Board, of Revenue by Notification dated 29.10.1995 levied Regulatory Duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner filed Sills of Entry claiming exemption under SRO No. 671 (l)/94 but respondent No. 3, Collector of Customs (Appraisement) refused to extend the benefit of the exemption and demanded the regulatory duty on the imported goods. Consequently, Petitioner filed the present petition to challenge the levy of the regulatory duty on the raw materials imported vide various LCs established between 21.2.1995 to 23.11.1995.
2. Mr. Amer Raza Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the raw material and the bmponents imported by the petitioner have been exempted uom the payment of Customs duty and Sales Tax vide SRO 671 (l)/94 and that the regulatory duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem imposed under Section 1.8 of the Customs Act is without lawful authority and a nullity in the eyes of law. He idded that the facility of exemption from duty in respect of I ' goods to be supplied against international tenders has lays been available and, as such, CBR had no authority to pose regulatory duty on the raw material in question, hmed counsel pointed out that the petitioners had entered o contracts of supply before the imposition of regulatory ty and, as such, a vested right had come into existence fhich could not be taken away in view of the judgment of the upreme Court in Al-Samrez case (1986 SCM R 1917).
224 Tax SC Corp. .
3. 4. #tbs
5. Key Law Reports
6. #the
7. 8. #tbs
9. 200
10. #the
11. In reply, Mr. S. Tariq Ali, learned Federal Counsel contended that the effect of Al-Samrez case is no longe | available after amendment in the Customs Act, 1969, and' that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has already! Held that the Government has the power and jurisdiction to^ impose regulatory duty.
12. We have heard and considered the arguments of Mr. Amer Raza Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tariq Ali, learned Federal Counsel.
13. A perusal of the Court Order Sheet including the Orders dated 27.12.1995 and 4.1.1996 clearly show that this Petition was admitted to consider the validity of the! Imposition of regulatory duty which was challenged by the petitioner and several other persons who had filed similar Constitutional Petitions.
14. As far as the, imposition of regulatory duty is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Collector of Customs v. Ravi Spinning Ltd. (1999 SCM R 412), has upheld the power of the Government to impose regulatory duty. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners', counsel that imposition of regulatory duty is void ab initio and I without lawful authority does not hold ground.
15. The learned counsel has not produced any document to show that he was denied exemption from payment of duty, if available, under SRO 671 (I)/94, dated 3.7.1994. However, his contention that by imposition of, regulatory duty his vested rights were affected because he had j established the Letters of Credit before the imposition of th*J regulatory duty on 29.10.1995 is not valid. After insertior| of Section 3 4-A in the Customs Act, 1969, the effect of Al- Samrez case stands material and all important are liable to pay Customs'Duty at the rate of duty applicable to any*goods on the date on which the bill of entry is manifested as provided by Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969.
16. In view of the above legal position, this Petition s not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
17. The above are the reasons for the Short Order da 26.2.2003 whereby this Petition was dismissed.
According **