Messrs THE GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Pakistan Islamabad

ORDER

1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑ M/s. General Tyre & Rubber Company of Pakistan Limited have filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the action of the respondents in issuing commercial licences for import of tractor tyres. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Import Policy issued for the years 1987‑90 the import of front and rear Tyres of Fiat‑4805, Fiat 640. M.F.240 M.F. 375, Ford: (Model 361024610) tractor is completely banned. In support of his argument the learned counsel has relied on Appendix 'F' to the Import Policy, which specifies standardised makes of Tractor's component which shall not be importable. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by allowing import of tractor tyres the respondents are frustrating the object of the deletion programme and the Import Policy which is aimed at indigenisation of the Imported items. It is further contended by the learned counsel that by allowing import of tyres and tubes of tractors under free list on commercial basis, the respondents are attempting to achieve an object indirectly which they cannot do directly. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been discriminated against by the authorities by issuance of import licence on commercial basis under free list as the petitioner who is also a registered importer is deprived of the licences to import tyres of tractor while others have been issued the same.

2. None of the contentions of the learned counsel has impressed us. The contention of the petitioner is that the front and rear tyres of the tractor fall under Item No.14 of para. 4.5 of the Import Policy and as such their import under free list is in contravention of Import Policy. In the comments submitted by the respondents in the petition which were called before hearing of this case, the respondents specifically stated that the tractor's tyres imports where of are l allowed under the above policy on commercial basis under free list are classified under IIC No.40 IIF. O1(a) and this item is neither mentioned in Chapters 3,4 and 5 nor in the negative list of the Import Policy. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that mere fact, that the IIC classification of the tyres which are allowed to be imported under free list happens to be different from the classification given under Serial No.14 of paragraph 4.5 of the Import Policy, is not sufficient to infer that these tyres are freely importable. It is urged by the learned counsel that the effect of mentioning these tyres in Appendix 'F' which is a part of the Import Policy, is that their import is completely banned. Paragraph 6.1 of the Import Policy specifies the items which are freely importable This paragraph reads as follows:

3. "6.1. Freely importable items.‑‑Items not covered in Chapters 3,4 and 5 shall be considered to be freely importable." The plain effect of the above provision in the Import Policy is that those items B which are not mentioned in Chapters 3,4 and 5, freely importable. Item No. 14 of para. 4.5 of Import Policy reads as follows:

4. S.No.DescriptionIIC No.Specific condition14.Tractors (In CKD

5. (condition) of standardized makes given in Appendix' F. 87.01ICOI Tractors at S. Nos. I‑5 of Appendix `F will be importable in CKD condition by recognized assemblers manufacturer subject to deletion programme applicable to each standardized make as specified in Appendix `F.

6. It is an admitted position that import licence for item No.14 of paragraph 4.5 of the Import Policy are issued only to the assemblers of tractors. Item No.14 of para. 4.5 of the Import Policy which permitted import of tractors in CKD condition of standardized make is to be read with Appendix 'F' of the Import Policy which specified those parts of the tractors which could not be imported by the importers against licences issued for items 14 of paragraph 4.5 of Import Policy. It is, therefore, quite clear that the restriction imposed by Appendix 'F' of the import Policy on the import of certain parts of tractors is to be read only with reference to item 14 of paragraph 4.5, of the Import Policy. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then each item mentioned in Appendix 'F' of the Import Policy has to be treated as an independent item of restricted list of Import Policy while in fact these are only components of the main item No.14 of restricted list. There is no justification for such on interpretation.

7. In our view as front and rear tyres of tractors are not specifically mentioned under Chapters 3,4 and 5 of the Import Policy there is no justification for holding that their import as an item of free list of Import Policy is not permissible. We C are also of the view that mention of front and rear Tyres of tractor in Appendix 'F is only meant to restrict the Import of item No.14 of para. 4.5 of restricted list in the manner prescribed under the said appendix. This conclusion also finds support from the fact that the IIC Schedule Number of item at Serial No. 14 of paragraph 4.5 of the Import Policy is 87.01CI01 while IIC classification of tractor's tyres and tubes permitted for Import under free list is 40. IIF.Ol(a). In view of our above conclusion there is no merit in the arguments that the issuance of import licence for commercial import of tractor's tyres and tubes under free P list amounts to doing something indirectly which cannot be done lawfully directly. We are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that issuance of such licences amounts to defeating the deletion programme or the provision of Import Policy under review. The last submission of the petitioner in by case is that the effect of issuance of commercial licence for import of tractor lyres and tubes under the list amounts to discrimination of petitioner as against; other importers. We have not been able to understand the manner in which the petitioner has been discriminated against by the authorities as a result of issuance of commercial licence for import of tractor's tyres and tubes on free list under the import policy to other importers. There is nothing before us to conclude that the petitioner though entitled to issuance of a commercial licence for import of tractor's tyres and tubes on the basis of free list was denied the same by the respondents while others belonging to the same category were issued such licences. We accordingly dismiss the petition summarily.

8. H.B.T/G‑71/K Petition dismissed.