MOOSA & Co. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS KARACHI AND AM/Irina

' Z, A. CHANNA , J.-in view of the affidavit filed by Mr. Fahimuddin, Manager, Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press at Islamabad, to the effect that the Notifications purporting to have been issued on21.8-1975,were actually printed in the Government Press on 17-9-1975, and the first consignment of the Issues of the said Gazette were sent to the Department of Stationery and Books at Islamabad on 16-10-1975, the learned Deputy Attorney-General does not oppose the above petitions, in each of which the Bill of Entry/Manifest was admittedly submittedly/delivered prior to 16.10-1975. In view of the above admission of the learned Deputy Attorney-General, and the admitted position that the Notifications in question of 21-8-1975 were not even distributed prior to 16-10-1975, the petitioners in each of these seven petitions cannot be held Halle for payment of duty under the impugned Notifications. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Province of East Pakistan v. Hassan Askary (1) that a notification can be said to be published only when some means is adopted to communicate it to the public or to the parties concerned in order to publish it". As we have already shown, no steps were taken either to communicate to the general public or the parties concerned, the impugned notifications of 21-8-1975 till at least 16-10-1975.

2. In view of the above position, we hold that the Customs Authorities were not competent in the case of the petitioners, in all these 7 petitions, to impose regulatory duty or enhanced Customs Duty at the rates notified in the said notifications. We would accordingly allow the petitions, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

3. The petitioners in all these petitions, except Petition No, 228/76, have furnished bank guarantee on the basis of which they were permitted to clear their goods at the old rates of duties. The bonds contained in the bank guarantees will stand discharged. In the case of Petition No, 228/7n, in which no bank guarantee was furnished, but duty in accordance with the impugned notifications was paid to the Customs Authorities, the excess duty paid should be refunded.

(1) PLD 1971 SC 82