Mst. WALAYAT BEGUM vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, LAHORE and 4
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in a customs dispute. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the Collector of Customs from harassing her and a declaration that the customs duty demand on an imported Mercedes Benz was illegal. The High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner had previously provided an undertaking to pay the assessed duties but failed to do so, leading to the auction of the goods. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when the petitioner had bypassed the statutory appellate hierarchy provided under customs law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the available statutory remedies of appeal and revision before the Customs authorities precluded the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The judgment affirms the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for statutory remedies when such remedies remain unexhausted.
- Can a petitioner invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court without first exhausting statutory remedies of appeal and revision?
- Is a writ of mandamus appropriate when a petitioner has failed to honor an undertaking to pay assessed customs duties?
- Does the existence of an alternative remedy in the hierarchy of customs authorities bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is claimed against judgment dated 3-11-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,19898 of 1999 declining to issue a writ/order in the nature of mandamus to respondent-Collector of Customs not to harass the petitioner and a declaration to the effect that the demand of custom duty made from her in relation to a used Mercedes Benz 250-D Car be declared as illegal, with the following observations:--- "3. Learned legal advisor of the respondents submits that petitioner gave an undertaking to the Customs Authority that she will pay the duty till 22-10-1949 but despite the undertaking, she failed to pay duties/tax assessed on the imported items and in these circumstances, the goods were auctioned on 29-10-1999.
4. It is thus obvious that the assessme nt was made by the Assistant Collector, petitioner undertook to pay the Customs Duty and other taxes,the payment was not made by the petitioner, which resulted in the auction of the goods. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of assessment, she could have challenged the order in appeal before the forum in the hierarchy of jurisdiction. In presence of available remedy, petitioner could not possibly invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
5. This petition is, therefore, .Disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may avail her remedy of appeal before the authorities concerned in accordance with law."
2. We have heard Malik Allah Yar Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition and Mr. A. Karim Malik, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the respondents in terms of order, dated 28-12-1999.
3. When the attention of Mr. Khan was drawn to the fact that the learned Judge in Chambers had duly noticed his client's undertaking to the Customs Authorities to pay duties/tax assessed on the imported item till 22-10-1999 but she failed to do so which necessitated the auction of the goods on 29-10-1999 i,e, about a month earlier than the hearing of the case in the High Court without resorting to the appropriate remedies within the hierarchy of respondent-Authorities, he had nothing to urge to the contrary.
4. We find that resort to extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court by the petitioner, without availing her remedy of appeal before the Authorities concerned, was not in order and the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that no special reason existed for coming to the rescue of the petitioner who had failed to resort to the remedies of appeal/revision etc. Before the Customs Department in relation to the impugned assessment.
5. Not finding any force in the above petition, the same is dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Micheal D'Souza vs Sareeruddin Khan and others 2004 C.L.R. 1908
- MICHEAL DSOUZA vs SAGEERUDDIN KHAN and others 2004 PTD 2278