1. ORDER ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.- Constitutional Petitions Nos. 1477 and 1478 of 2000, between the same parties, based on similar facts, involving common questions for adjudication, were heard by us on 23.10.2000. Same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Succinctly the facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are that the petitioner M/s. Y.K.K.
3. Garments, engaged in producing YKK brand zip fasteners, imported two consignments of Velcro Tape from Taiwan. One consignment, subject-matter of C.P. No. 1477/2000 consisted of 388 cartons and the other of C.P. No. 1478/2000 consisted of 300 cartons, in respect of the consignment of 300 cartons which arrived at Karachi Port on 6.9.2000, the petitioner filed a home consumption bill of entry under Section 79 of the Customs Act, which was manifested on 7.9.2000. The petitioner claimed classification and assessme nt of this imported consignment under HS Code 5806- 32000, which provided customs duty at 0% and sales tax at 15%, as according to the petitioner prevalent on 7.9.2000. The other consignment of 388 cartons subject-matter of C.P. No. D-1477/2000 arrived at Karachi Port on 30.8.2000 and its bill of entry was manifested on 9.9.2000. In respect of other consignment also, the petitioner specified some classification under HS Code 5806-32000 and claimed payment of customs duty at 0% and sales tax at 15% as according to the petitioner prevalent on 9.9.2000. However, the respondent No. 2 declined to accept petitioner's claim on the basis of The Customs (Amendment) Ordinance, 2000, Ordinance XLV1 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) dated 7.9.2000. According to the petitioner, the Ordinance was received from respondent No. 1 on 8.9.2000 and thus not applicable to his cases being not publicly available on 7.9.2000 and even few days thereafter. The petitioner therefore claimed clearance of his two consignments by the respondents at the rate prevailing before the enforcement of the Ordinance.
4. In C.P. No. D-1478/2000 respondent No. 1 filed his comments wherein he . Did not dispute the facts with regard to arrival of goods at Karachi Port, submissions of bills of entry by the petitioner, classification claimed by them and also the date of manifestation as mentioned by the petitioner.
5. However, respondent No. 1 asserted that the Ordinance came into force at once and thus same was applicable to both the consignments of the petitioner which were manifested oh 7.9.2000 and 9.9.2000. Respondent No. 1 further stated that irrespective of the fact that the Ordinance was published in the official Gazette on 7.9.2000 or not and even if it was not publicly available on that day, same was applicable to the case of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 also challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner under the Customs Act. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 during the course of his arguments made a statement before the Court that the comments filed by respondent No. 1 in C.P. No. D- 1478/2000 may be treated as his comments in other connected petition also.
6. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Khan, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that although the Ordinance is dated 7.9.2000 but the same was not published in the official Gazette on that day and therefore the duty levied/charged under the Ordinance was not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in support of his contention, learned counsel placed his reliance on the cases reported as M/s. Moosa & Company v. Collector of Customs, Karachi and another (PLD 1977 Karachi 710) and The Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khawaja Hassan Askari and others (PLD 1971 S.C. 82). Learned counsel referring to Section 30(a) of the Customs Act, 1969 further contended that on the date of manifestation of two bills of entry the chargeable duty applicable to the petitioner's on assignments was C% customs duty and sales tax ai 1 5% and not one as specified under the Ordinance. To give support to his contention that on 7.9.2000 the Ordinance was not published in Government Gazette, learned counsel referred before us a letter cl. Ted 7th September, 2000 written by Section Officer, Ministry of Law, Justice, Human Rights and Parliamentary Affairs, addressed to the Manager Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press, Islamabad, mentioning therein for publication of the ordinance in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, on the same day and supply of its copy to the Division on 8.9.2000 definitely.
8. On the other hand Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal referred before us Sections 18 -,nd 19 of the Customs Act and the relevant Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary which goes to show that the Ordinance was published at pages 650 to 656 of the Gazette on 7th September, 2000. Learned counsel therefore contended that the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner are misconceived and the petitioner is liable to pay customs duty and sales tax in accordance with the Ordinance which provides 35% customs duty in the case of the petitioner.
9. We have carefully examined the contentions raised before us and also gone through the relevant record.
10. On the basis of admitted facts that the two bills of entry submitted by the petitioner in respect of its disputed consignment were manifested on 7.9.2000 and 9.9.2000, in these petitions the only point for consideration before us is that whether the Ordinance was not published in Government Gazette on 7.9.2000 or was not publicly available on that day.
11. In order to examine this point, it will be useful to persue the copy of Government Gazette clearly signifies the intention of the law makers that the moment Ordinance was signed by the President it became a piece of legislation in force.
12. The facts as discussed above would show that the two decisions relied by the learned counsel for petitioner are on different premises, same relate to Notifications and not applicable to the present cases.
13. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are of the view that the petitioner, whose two bills of entry were admittedly manifested on 7.9.2000 and 9.9.2000, is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the petitions and therefore these petitions being without merit are dismissed in limine.