Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BELA ENGINEERS LTD. VS Respondent: CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE
1988 C L C 1775
1988 C L C 1775
[ Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian and Abdul Razzak, A. Thahim, JJ
BELA ENGINEERS LTD.‑‑Petitioner versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE anal others‑‑Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. D‑1540 of 1987, decided on ‑25th November, 1987.
Customs Act (IV of 1369)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 21 (c)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Refund of Customs duty‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Finding of fact recorded by three competent forums that petitioner had failed to prove by reliable evidence the alleged short‑shipment from abroad on basis of which refund of Customs duty was claimed‑‑Such finding, field, could not be, reversed in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
Ahmad H., Shah for Petitioner.
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J:‑‑Buy this common order we intend to‑dispose of
the above two petitions as they involve the common question of law and fact.
2. It appears that the petitioner had imported components of diesel engines for assembling into engines for trucks and buses from United Kingdom. They filed the bill of entries in respect of the consignment as per invoices. They stored the goods in the bonded ware houses. After exhausting the consignment they filed a claim with the Customs authorities for the refund of the customs duty on the ground that the consignment was short of certain components which were replaced by the exporter. The detail is contained in annexure "H". It appears that respondent No.3 after examining the case declined the above request by his orders dated 18‑3‑1986 and 11‑2‑1986 respectively. Against the above orders the petitioner filed appeals which were dismissed by respondent No.2 by his orders dated 22‑5‑1986 and 6‑5‑1986. Against the above orders the petitioner filed revisions which were dismissed by respondent No.l by order dated 20th September, 1987. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above orders have filed the present two petitions.
3. In support of the above petition Mr. Ahmad H. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was sufficient material before the three forums to conclude, that there was short receipt of the consignment. In this behalf, we may observe that it is not understandable as to why the exporter did not intimate to the petitioner as to the shortage in the consignment immediately after the shipment of the consignment as admittedly the goods were sent through a ship and, therefore, it must have taken quite sometime. Apart from the above fact the three forums have held that the petitioner had failed to prove by reliable evidence the alleged sort shipment. The finding of fact recorded by the three competent forums, in our view, cannot be reversed in the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction.
4. The petition has no merit and it is dismissed in limine.
H . B . T . / B‑62/ K Petition dismissed.