1. ' By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Petitioner Jamil Daud has brought before us his grievance about non-release of his consignment despite order, dated 12-2-2004 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise and the order, dated 29-4-2004 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeal-II).
2. ' Prayer made in the petition reads as under:-,- "(I) Declare that the respondent No,2 has no jurisdiction in view of S.R.O. 388/82, dated 22-4-1982 to detain the out of charge bill of entry of the petitioner where the duty has already been paid, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the release of his consignment as well as respondent No,2 has no jurisdiction at all to arbitrarily fix the valuation in violation of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, as it is the power of Controller of Valuation and respondent No,1 only.
(II) Direct the respondent No,1 to immediately release the consignments of the petitioner in terms of their N.O.C. Which they issued as the petitioner deposited the customs duty, taxes, penalty and additional duties in terms of the Order-in-Original No,5 of 2004, dated 18-2-2004 which they have already received on 19-2-2004 including delay detention certificate and free slip and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any demurrage charges, godowh rent charges of whatsoever any nature to any authority including of Respondent No .4 .
(III) Direct the respondent No,1 and 2 to immediately issue delay detention certificate and free slip.
(IV) Direct the Respondent No,4 to immediately release the consignment of the petitioner without waiting for the N.O.C. Of Respondent No,2 as the Respondent No,1 has already issued N.O.C. For the release of petitioner's consignment who is appropriate Collector regarding sei2ure and confiscation of the goods.
(V) Declare that the Petitioner is not entitled to pay anything to Respondent No,4 in view of issuance of N.O.C. By the Respondent No,l.
(VI) Declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay demurrage charges of allied charges to respondent No,2 or any other authority including Respondent No,4 and entitled for the full benefit of delay detention certificate and free slip and if any the same shall be paid by the respondent No,2's officer from their own pocket, consequently the respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall be restrained from creating any hurdles in the smooth clearance of the-goods in question.
(VII) Grant such other/better relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(VIII) Costs of the petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the case record. The only defence taken by the learned counsel for the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 for non-implementation of above referred two orders and non-release of the disputed consignment of the petitioner is that an appeal has been preferred by Respondent No,2 before the Tribunal, which is still pending for adjudication. However, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel that till this date no interim stay, suspending the operation of above referred two orders, has been passed by the Tribunal in favour of Respondent No,2.
4. ' In the above circumstances, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, we dispose of this Petition in the following terms.
5. ' The Respondent No,2 may pursue his pending appeal before the Tribunal, either to get it finally disposed of or to seek suspension of the above referred two orders in favour of the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of this order. In case the said appeal is not disposed of in favour of Respondent No,2 or suspension order is not passed then the consignment of the Petitioner shall be released forthwith in terms of the original order, dated 12-2-2004, of which, according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, compliance has already been made.
6. ' In case Petitioner suffers or has suffered any financial loss due to acts or omissions of Respondent No,2, it will be open for him to pursue further remedy against them for his claim of damages.