1. ' This Petition was field against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), South Zone, Karachi, dated 27-11-1996 whereby he had remanded the case to the Adjudicating Officer (Deputy Collector, Sales-Tax (West) Karachi) to hear the party, decide the issue afresh and pass a speaking order.
2. ' On inquiry from Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioner informed that pursuant to the aforesaid order adjudication of the dispute was again undertaken by the Adjudicating Officer against whose order the Petitioner has filed an appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal confirmed that Appeal No,121 of 2000 filed by the Petitioner is pending before the Appellate Tribunal.
3. This Constitution Petition has been pending since 28-5-1997 and during this period the Petitioner has been pursuing their remedy under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969. As a senior advocate and an Officer of the Court, it was the duty of Counsel to Have informed the Court that the Petitioner had appeared before the Adjudicating Officer pursuant to Collector's order, dated 27-11-1996 and thereafter being aggrieved by the second order of the Adjudicating Officer had ultimately filed an appeal before the Central Excise, Customs and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is axiomatic that counsel should not conceal facts from the Court (Muhammad Saddiq v. Ruqaya Khanum (PLD 2001 Kar. 60) and especially material facts which affect the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court and maintainability of the Petition. We take serious view of the conduct of Counsel in this case and expect that in future advocates shall not conduct themselves in such irresponsible manner. In case any counsel commits such dereliction of duty, the Court shall take strict action against the counsel who commits such breach.
4. ' In view of the above facts, this Petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed alongwith the pending application. The Respondents shall he entitled to costs.
5. [Karachi High Court] Before Salved Saeed Ashhad, C.J. And Ghulam Rabbani, J Messrs GANI & TAYUB (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Second Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others Constitutional Petition No, D-2310 of 1994, decided on 25th May, 2004.
(a) Words and phrases--- ----Clover seeds---Meanings. Fp.. 2627] A Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, revised Edition first published in 1996; Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th. Edn. Defines the word "Clover" p.271 and Longman' Dictionary of Contemporary English, new Edition (1991 Edn.) p.224 ref.
(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-7- ----Ss.156(19-A), 202 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Pakistan Customs Tarrif (Eighth Edition), 1992, Schedule-:-S.R.O. 480(1)/92 dated 14-5-1992---S.R.O. 481(1)/88 dated 26-6- 1988---S.R.O. 500(1)/88 dated 26-6-1988---PCT Heading No, 1209.2200---PCT Heading 1209.100--- COnstitutional petition---Import of " clover seeds"---Exemption-Importer claimed exemption from Customs duty, Sales. Tax and lqra Sureharge on the ground that clover seeds .Would be covered by the expression/definition of "Live plants and seeds,: of vegetables, fruits and flowers" as exempted in the three notifications.-- seeds"---Definition---Clover seeds are seeds for growing a clover, which is a distinct and separate type of plant than the "live plants and seeds of vegetable, fruits and flowers" and is often used as food for cattle---Such definition of clover neither brings clover within the, wbrds or expression "live plants" nor seeds of clover can be identified or included in the seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers-- Clover seeds thus cannot be equated with live plants and also cannot be accepted or treated as seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers---Contention that S.R.O. 480(1)/92 dated 14-5- 1992; S.R.O. 481(1)/88 dated 26-6-1988 and S.R.O. 500(1)/88 dated 26-6-1988 have granted exemption to the imported clover seeds from levy of Customs duty, Sales Tax and lqra Surcharge does not appear to catty weight as the clover seeds are neither live plants nor the same are seeds for growing vegetables, fruits and flowers---Clover seeds have also been assigned a different meaning in the Pakistan Customs Tarrif, 1992, Schedule than the exempted goods---Imported clover seeds, in circumstances, were not liable to exemption from payment of Customs duty. Sales Tax and lqra Surcharge. [pp. 2627, 2630] B & D
(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -----Ss. 156(19-A) 202 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition--- Locus poenitentiae, principle of--Applicability---After clearance of the imported goods without subjecting them to Customs duty, Sales Tax and lqra Surcharge, inadvertently, ignorantly and in clear disregard of the current PCT Schedule, the importer would not acquire a vested right not to make payment of Customs duty, Sales Tax and Iqra Surcharge and such order of the department having -been acted upon could be recalled and rescinded by the department-Principle of locus poenitentiae would not be applicable in the case---Principles.
6. The Customs authority in clearing the imported Clover seeds without subjecting them to customs duty and lqra Surcharge and obtaining an undertaking for levying Sales tax if subsequently found that the matter was decided inadvertently, ignorantly and in clear disregard of the PCT Schedule (Eighth Edition) of October, 1992, referred to above and that the error or mistake in clearing the imported goods without subjecting them to Customs duty and Iqra Surcharge was on account of the fact that, in the earlier PCT Schedule (Seventh Edition) of September 1991. Clover seeds were exempted from payment of Customs duty. The above mentioned PCT Schedule was replaced by PCT Schedule (8th Edition) of October, 1992 which was in force at the time when the bill of entry- for release of the imported goods from in-bond was submitted by the petitioners and according to October, 1992 Edition, the imported Clover seeds were liable to Customs duty and Sales Tax. Thus, the order releasing the imported Clover seeds without subjecting them to Customs duty, Iqra Surcharge and Sales Tax, was contrary to the law prevailing at the relevant time, was illegal and void ab initio. An illegal and void order does not create any right or privilege in favour of a party and further that an illegal and void order can be recalled by the Authority making the same on coming to know that an illegality or material irregularity had been committed by it in making such order. The contention that the petitioners had acquired vested right/interest by virtue of the aforesaid order for clearance of their consignment without subjecting them to Customs duty, lqra Surcharge and Sales Tax on the principle of locus poenitentiae, as the order was acted upon resulting in release of the imported goods, does not warrant consideration. The principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted to an order which is not illegal or void. It is a settled principle that perpetual rights cannot be granted or obtained on the basis of an illegal order irrespective of the fact that a decisive step had been taken on the basis of such an order. The contention that irrespective of the fact that the order was illegal, contrary to law and void ab initio, it could not be retraced or recalled if it had been acted upon by a decisive step, is unacceptable.
7. [p. 26281 C Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence and another v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others 2000 SCM R 907 fol.
(d) Void order--- ----Illegal and void order does not create any right or privilege in favour of a party and such order, can be recalled by the authority making the same, on coming to know that an illegality or material irregularity had been committed by it in making such order---Contention that the party had acquired vested right/interest by virtue of such order on the principle of locus poenitentiae, as the order was acted upon, would not warrant consideration--- Perpetual rights cannot be granted or obtained on the basis of an illegal order irrespective of the fact that a decisive step had been taken on the basis of such an order. [p. 26281 C Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence and another v.. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 and Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others 2000 SCM R 907 ref.
(e) Locus poenitentiae, principle of--- ----Applicability---Principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted to an order which is not illegal or void---Perpetual rights cannot, be granted or obtained on the basis of an illegal order irrespective of the fact that a decisive step had been taken on the basis of such an order. [p. 26281 C Engineer- in-Chief Branch through Ministry of: Defence and another v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 and Abdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of- Sindh through Secretary, Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others 2000 SCM R 907 ref. Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.
8. Sajjad Ali Shah and Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents.
9. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2004.
10. ' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C. J.---In this Constitutional Petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:--
(a) Declare that no customs duty, taxes or lqra surcharge is payable by the petitioner.
(b) Declare that the orders for the payment of the duties, taxes and lqra surcharge by the respondent No,1 is without lawful, authority and of no legal effect.
(c) Declare that the orders marked Annex "J" is void and Annex.
11. "I" being based thereon is-equally void.
(d) Quash the impugned orders marked Annexes "I" and "J".
(e) Prohibit the respondents jointly and severally from recovering any duties, taxes and lqra surcharge from the petitioner and/or taking any adverse action against the petitioner including any actions under sections 156(19-A) and 202 of the Customs Act, 1969.
(b) Grant costs of this petition.
(c) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
12. ' The brief facts as stated in the memo .Of petition are that the petitioners entered into contract for import of Clover Seeds which according to them were covered under PCT Chapter 12.09 "seeds, fruit and spores, of a kind used for sowing" (hereinafter referred to as the imported goods). The goods at the relevant time were exempt from Import Licence fee, Customs duty and Iqra surcharge under S.R.O. 636(1)/92, dated 1-7-1992. No Import Licence fee was charged for issuing Import Licence as the imported goods fell within the exempt category. The goods arrived at Karachi on 31-10-1992 and placed in a bonded warehouse. Subsequently, the petitioners filed two bills of entry for ex- bonding the imported goods which were cleared on 8-5-1993. In the two bills of entry, the petitioners had stated the rate of Customs duty at 10. Per cent and Iqra surcharge at 5 per cent and claimed exemption from Sales Tax under S.R.O. 500(1)/88, dated 26-6-1988. The imported goods were subjected to Customs duty and lqra surcharge as the petitioners were unaware of the Notification exempting the goods from Iqra Surcharge and Customs duty. The imported goods were cleared by respondents Nos.2 and 3 granting exemption from the Customs duty and lqra Surcharge but levied 1 per cent Flood Relief Surcharge. There was a controversy with regard to the payment of Sales Tax and respondents Nos.2 and 3 agreed to clear the imported goods without levying Sales Tax on a underteaking furnished by the petitioners that if the matter was decided against them, they would pay the amount of Sales Tax. After a long period of time, the petitioners received letter, dated 3-10-1994 from respondent No,3 informing them that the exemptions from Customs duty and Iqra surcharge were not available to the petitioners in view of the ruling of respondent No,1, dated 29-9-1993. The petitioner was called upon to pay Customs duty, Iqra surcharge and Income Tax thereon within 15 days. This letter was replied to by the petitioners vide their letter, dated 17-10-1994 informing respondent No,3 that they were exempted from Customs duty, Iqra surcharge and Sales tax but the respondents did not accept the same and threatened to initiate action under sections 156(19A) and 202 of the Customs Act. Having no other alternative, adequate and efficacious remedy, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for redress of their grievance.
13. ' Parawise comments were filed by Dr.. S.M. Tariq Huda, Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraisement on behalf of the Customs Department, wherein it was categorically stated that the imported goods were not exempted from payment of Customs duty, Iqra, surcharge and Sales tax as claimed by the petitioners. It was further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that vide Notifications S.R.O. 480(1)/92, dated 14-5-1992. S.R.O. 481(1)/88, dated 26-6-1988 and S.R.O.
14. 500(1)/88, dated 26-6-1988 (hereinafter referred to as said three. Notifications) .They were exempted from payment of Customs duty, Iqra surcharge and Sales Tax respectively was not correct and contrary to the provisions of the said three Notifications as none of them granted exemption 'from Sales Tax in respect of the imported goods but the exemption was provided to "Live plants and seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers" which were distinct and different from the imported goods. It was further submitted that the imported goods were classified under PCT Heading No1209.2200 while the seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers were classified under PCT Heading 1209.1900. It, was also submitted that in the bills of entry submitted by them for clearance of the imported goods, the petitioners rendered themselves liable to payment of Customs duty and Iqra surcharge as they were fully aware that they were not exempted from the Customs duty and lqra surcharge and subsequently they could not be allowed to resile from their liability. With regard to the clearance of the imported goods without payment of Customs duty and Iqra surcharge, it was submitted that the same was done by mistake and inadvertence and when the mistake was realized, demand-cum-show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. With regard to the non- levying of Sales Tax, it was submitted that the goods of the petitioners were cleared without subjecting them to Sales Tax on the undertaking of the petitioners that if subsequently the matter was decided against them, they would pay the Sales Tax.. An objection was also raised with regard to the maintainability of the Constitutional Petition on the ground that the departmental remedies were available to the petitioners which they failed to avail of, as a result of which they could not the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
15. ' We have heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate on behalf of Customs Department and Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah, learned Standing counsel on behalf of the Federation.
16. ' Mr. Abdul Ghaffar in support of the Constitutional Petition raised the following grounds:--
(i) That by virtue of the said three Notifications, the imported goods were exempted from payment of Customs duty, Sales Tax and Iqra surcharge and the Customs Department had committed an illegality by subjecting the imported goods to the aforesaid three levies:
(ii) That the imported goods of the petitioners were cleared by the Customs Department without levying Customs duty, Income Tax and Iqra surcharge whereby the petitioners had acquired a vested right to exemption from payment of the Customs duty. Income Tax and Iqra surcharge on the imported goods which could not be taken away subsequently:
(iii) That the Customs Department would not be allowed to take away the benefit on the plea that the .Order clearing the imported goods without subjecting them to Customs duty, Income Tax and Iqra surcharge was a wrong, mistaken or inadvertent order liable to be recalled in view of the principle that a wrong, mistaken or an illegal order if acted upon could not be retraced or recalled; and
(iv) that the Customs Department had erred in holding that the Clover Seeds did not fall within the scope of "Live plants and seeds of vegetables fruits and flowers".
17. Mr. Raja M. Iqbal controverted the above arguments of Mr. Abdul Ghaffar and submitted as under:- -
(i) Relative to ground No (i) raised by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Mr. Raja M. Iqbal submitted that the contention raised was completely devoid of force in view of the fact that in the PCT Manual issued by Central Board of Revenue, Clover Seeds have been mentioned under separate sub-Heading No, 1209.2200 and were subjected to Customs duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem and Sales Tax at 12.5 per cent:- (i.) With regard to the grounds Nos.(ii) and (iii), Mr. Raja M. Iqbal submitted that the goods were cleared without subjecting them to Customs duty, Iqra surcharge and Sales Tax in view of the fact that in the Pakistan Customs Tariff Manual, Seventh Edition, issued in September, 1991. Colver Seeds were granted exemption from Customs duty while Sales Tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent was to be charged but in the Eighth Edition of Pakistan Customs Tariff Manual effective from October, 1992, the Clover Seeds were also subjected to Customs duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem while maintaining the Sales Tax at the old rate of 12.5 per cent which fact was not within the knowledge of the Customs Officers making the order of release of the imported goods which rendered it as contrary to law, illegal and of no effect. He further submitted that such an illegal order could not confer any rights or privileges and was. Liable to be recalled/rescinded as and when the illegality came to light. In support of the above contention, he placed reliance on the case of Abdul Haque Indhar and others versus Province of Sindh through Secretary, Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others (2000 SCM R 907):
(iii) With regard to the ground No, (iv) raised by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Mr. Raja M. Iqbal submitted that from a bare perusal of the definition of "Clover" appearing in the ordinary as well as legal dictionaries, it would be absolutely clear that Clover Seeds could not be equated with the "live plants and seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers" and were a distinct and separate commodity.
18. ' Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah, learned Standing counsel while adopting the arguments of Mr. Raja M. Iqbal further submitted that the rule of Interpretation of Statutes required that if there were two constructions which an entry (tariff) could reasonably bear and one of them, for good reasons, was adopted by the Department, then the Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere merely because another entry more favourable to the subject appeared to Court as equally applicable. In support of the above, he placed reliance on the case Big Mak Food Ltd. v. Deputy Collector of Customs and others (1994 SCM R 537).
19. ' We have considered the arguments a the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the material on record as well as the case-law relied upon by them.
20. ' The questions to be determined in this Constitutional Petition are:- 6) Whether the imported goods namely Clover Seeds would be covered by the expression/definition of "Live plants and seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers"; and
(ii) Whether after the clearance of the goods without subjecting them to Customs duty, Sales Tax and lqra surcharge, the petitioners had acquired a vested right from payment of Customs duty, Sales Tax and Iqra surcharge and whether such order having been acted upon could be recalled or rescinded.
21. ' The petitioners claimed that the imported goods were exempted by the said three Notifications from payment of Customs duty, Sales Tax and Iqra surcharge and further that the imported goods had been rightly released without subjecting them to the above duties and surcharge. In order to resolve this issue, it will be necessary to peruse the said three Notifications for establishing whether the imported goods namely Clover Seeds would be covered by the expression/words "live plants and seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers". For such resolution, it will be necessary to find out the real meaning or the nature of Clover seeds. The word "Clover" has not been defined in the legal dictionaries and, therefore, for finding out/determining its meaning and nature reliance can only be. Placed on the ordinary English Dictionaries. Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, Revised Edition.
22. First published in 1996, defines the word "Clover" on page 261 as under:- "a small herbaceous plant that grows wild. In, temperate regions and which has leaves divided into three leaflets and small dense red or white flowers".
23. ' The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th Edition, defines the word "Clover" on page 271 as under:-= "a herbaceous leguminous plant with dense white or red globular flowers heads and leaves which are typically three-lobed".
24. ' Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, new edition (1991 Edition) defines the word "Clover" on page 224 as under:-- "a small usually three-leafed plant with pink, purple. Or white flowers, often grown as food for cattle".
25. ' From the above definitions of the word "Clo ?Er" it is to be noted that Clover seeds will be the seeds for growing a Clover, which is a distinct and separate type of plant than the live plants and seeds of vegetable, fruits and flowers and is often used as food for cattle. The above definitions of "Clover" neither bring it within the words or expression "live plants" nor seeds of Clover can be identified or included in the seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers. It is obvious that the Clover seeds cannot be equated with live plants and they also cannot be accepted or treated as seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers. In the circumstances, the assertion of the counsel for the petitioners that the said three Notifications had granted exemption to the imported Clover seeds from levy of Customs duty. Sales Tax and Iqra surcharge does not appear to carry weight as the Clover seeds are neither live plants nor the same are seeds for growing vegetables, fruits and flowers.
26. ' It is also pertinent to note that in the Schedule of Pakistan Customs Tariff (Eighth Edition) of October, 1992, laying down the rates of Customs duty, Sales Tax and other charges, issued by the Central Board of Revenue, Government of. Pakistan, seeds, fruit and spores, of a kind used for sowing appear under the Heading 12.09 and the said Heading is divided or bifurcated in several sub-Headings bearing Nos.1209.1100 and 1209.1900. There is another Heading of seed or forage plants. Other than beet seed which is further sub-divided into sub-Headings No,1209.2100 and 1209.2200. Entry No,1209.2200 relates to Clover seed which was subjected to levy of Customs duty at 10 per cent ad valorem and sales tax at 12.5 per cent. From the above entries appearing in PCT Schedule. It is also clear and obvious that Clover seeds have been assigned a different meaning and cannot be equated with the seeds of vegetables, fruits and flowers as provided in the said three Notifications.
27. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the imported Clover seeds were released without subjecting them to Customs duty and Sales Tax clearly leads to the assumption that the Customs Department was satisfied that the imported Clover seeds were covered by the said three Notifications and were entitled to exemption from levy of Customs duty. Sales Tax and Iqra surcharge is also without any substance. In this connection, it is to be noted that had this been the situation, then the petitioners would not have mentioned the rate of Customs duty and Iqra surcharge which was liable to be charged from them on the imported Clover seeds, thus admitting that the imported Clover seeds were liable to levy of Customs duty and Iqra surcharge in the bill of entry. The Customs authority in clearing the imported Clover seeds without subjecting them to Customs duty and Iqra surcharge and obtaining an undertaking for levying Sales tax subsequently found that the matter was decided inadvertently, ignorantly and in clear disregard of the PCT Schedule (Eighth Edition) of October, 1992, referred to above and that the error or mistake in clearing the imported goods without subjecting them to Customs duty and Iqra surcharge was on account of the fact that in the earlier PCT Schedule (Seventh Edition) of September, 1991. Clover seeds were exempted from payment of Customs duty. The above mentioned PCT Schedule was replaced by PCT Schedule (8th Edition) of October, 1992 which was in force at the time when the bill of entry for release of the imported goods from in-bond was submitted by the petitioners and according to October, 1992 Edition, the imported Clover seeds Were liable to Customs duty and Sales Tax. Thus, the order releasing the imported Clover seeds without subjecting them to Customs duty,. Iqra surcharge and Sales Tax was contrary to the law prevailing at the relevant time, was illegal and void ab initio. An illegal and void order does not create any right or privilege in favour of a party and further that an illegal and void order can be recalled by the Authority making the same on coming to know that an illegality or material irregularity had been committed by it in making such order. The contention of Mr. Abdul Ghaffar that the petitioners had acquired vested right/interest by virtue of the aforesaid order for clearance of their consignment without subjecting them to Customs duty, Iqra, surcharge and Sales Tax on the principle of locus poenitentiae, as the order was acted upon resulting in release of the imported goods, does not warrant consideration.
28. The principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted to an order which is not illegal or void. It is a settled principle that perpetual rights cannot be granted or obtained on the basis of an illegal order irrespective of the fact that a decisive step had been taken on the basis of such an order. The contention of Mr. Abdul Ghaffar that irrespective of the fact that the order was illegal, contrary to law and void ab initio, it could not be retraced or recalled if it had been acted upon by a decisive step, is unacceptable in view of the pronouncements made, by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases that on the basis of an illegal order perpetual rights cannot be gained. Such pronouncements have been made in the cases of (i) The Engineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence, and another versus Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 SC 207); and (ii) Abdul Hague Indhar and others versus Province of Sindh through Secretary, Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others (2000 SCM R 907). In the case of the Engineer-in-Chief (Supra) respondent Jalaluddin was granted Grade 11 on the basis of an illegal order and when on appellants came to know of the mistake, they withdrew the o letter in the basis of which he was granted Grade 11 although respondent Jalaluddin had been allowed to draw salary in Grade 11 and did draw his salary in Grade 11. However, it was held that the extra pay received by him on account of the mistake was not to be recovered. In the case of Abdul Hague Indhar (supra), the then Chief Minister of Sindh acting under the West Pakistan Delegation of Powers under the Financial Rules and Re- appropriation Rules, 1962 extended the period of lease in dispute from five (5) years to thirty (30) years. Subsequently it transpired that the Chief Minister could not exercise such power which was exercisable by the Conservator of Forest and Divisional Forest Officers and the extension granted by the Chief Minister was found to be ab intio, without lawful authority and jurisdiction and was recalled by the competent authority. Petitioner Abdul Haque Indhar claimed that in view of the above order, he had acquired vested right and the same could not be taken away by recalling or retracing the order of the Chief Minister. The Supreme Court pronounced that as the order of extension of thirty (30) years lease of the Forestry allowed by the, Chief Minister was contrary to the relevant law, therefore, the competent authority had the jurisdiction to rescind the order of extension operating in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Abdul Ghaffar is found to be without any substance and is rejected.
29. Upon the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the imported Clover seeds were liable to exemption from payment of Customs duty, Iqra surcharge and Sales Tax. This Constitutional Petition was, therefore, found to be without any substance and by a short order, dated 7-5-2004 it was dismissed for reasons to be recorded later. These are the reasons for the said short order.