IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2755 OF 2006 
(Against the judgment dated 4.5.2006 of the 
High Court of Sindh at Karachi passed in 
Const.P.D-304/2006) 
 
 
Agro Tractors (Private) Limited 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Fecto Belarus Tractors Limited, Karachi etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, Sr. ASC 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Nemo 
 
 
For respondents 2 to 4: 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Khokhar, Addl.A.G.P. 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR 
 
 
For respondents 5 to 8: 
Ex-parte 
 
 
For respondent No.9: 
Mr. M. Habib Qureshi, ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
Mr. Fazal Samad, Secy. Legal, FBR 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
25.9.2018 
 
ORDER 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ.- The controversy involved in the 
instant case is that the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) vide 
decision dated 1.7.2005, set up a committee “to work out the modalities and 
review the plan of import of 10,000 tractors at zero tariff…import of tractors shall be 
allowed only to those companies who have their tractor manufacturing units in Pakistan or 
are in the process of installing these.” This decision was communicated to various 
ministries/divisions vide letter dated 4.7.2005. However, on the same date, 
i.e. 4.7.2005, ECC modified its decision dated 1.7.2005 to the effect, inter 
alia, that “import of tractors shall be allowed only to those companies who want to install 
their tractor manufacturing facility in Pakistan.” Pursuant thereto a corrigendum 
dated 12.7.2005 was issued by the Cabinet Secretariat. The Ministry of 
 C.A. NO.2755 OF 2006 
-: 2 :-
Industries, Production and Special Initiatives invited proposals, to be 
reached within 10 days, for the import of tractors, which date was then 
extended up to 18.8.2005. Subsequently, three companies, including the 
appellant, were shortlisted and a summary was submitted to the then 
Prime Minister (PM) for approval, which was ultimately approved. In the 
meantime, respondent No.1 (the respondent) made a representation to the PM 
which was rejected by the committee for the reason that the said scheme 
was for new entrants only, while the respondent was an existing unit. 
Finally, a quota of 2500 tractors was allocated to the appellant as well as 
other companies. The respondent challenged the said allocation through a 
writ petition on the ground that it (the respondent) was denied the quota being 
an existing unit but at the same time quota was awarded to other existing 
units. It was further alleged that implementation of the scheme was non-
transparent and arbitrary. It was further alleged that CBR allowed the 
appellant to import 2500 tractors without any customs duty in Completely 
Knocked Down (CKD) condition, which is illegal being contrary to the 
decision of ECC. The learned High Court, after hearing the parties and 
considering the material available on the record in detail, vide the 
impugned judgment quashed all the proceedings initiated with the 
advertisement as they suffered from arbitrariness, excessive jurisdiction, 
favoritism, lack of transparency, smacked of subjectivity and are not in 
accordance with the decision of ECC. Hence, this appeal with the leave of 
the Court vide order dated 20.12.2006.  
2. 
 
In the above backdrop, it is to be noted that the Federation also 
challenged the impugned judgment through a separate petition (Civil Petition 
No.469/2006), which was disposed of (vide same order dated 20.12.2006 whereby leave was 
granted in the instant appeal) in view of the statement made before the Court, 
mentioned in the said order, to the effect that “the petitioner on instructions from 
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industries would like to withdraw the above mentioned petitions 
 C.A. NO.2755 OF 2006 
-: 3 :-
without prejudice to petitioners status/policy and in view of the change in the tariff policy of 
the Government and withdrawal of petitioners by the beneficiary importers.” 
Nonetheless, in the instant case, the appellant submitted a written 
statement asserting therein that “in view of the dismissal of the petitions filed by the 
Federation of Pakistan as not pressed, scheme in question having already expired by afflux 
of time i.e. 30th September, 2006, interaction of new “Zero Rated Import of Tractors 
Scheme” for the year 2006-2007, the petitioner does not press this petition to the extent of 
challenge to the validity of the scheme having been set aside as being non-transparent, and 
claims release of 156 tractors on the principle of promissory estoppel without payment of 
Custom duty and other charges” and also prayed for the release of the bank 
guarantee as it did not want to avail the scheme in question which 
otherwise had been declared illegal and without lawful authority. In view of 
the written statement and the submissions made by the learned counsel for 
the appellant, leave to appeal was granted to consider whether on the basis 
of promissory estoppel, the appellant is entitled to exemption from duty. 
Thus, the controversy in the instant appeal, as is apparent from the leave 
granting order, has narrowed down only to the entitlement or otherwise of 
the appellant for the release of the tractors already imported by it on the 
principle of promissory estoppel. 
3. 
 
Heard. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the 
appellant that the appellant is entitled to get the tractors, already imported, 
released without any duty on the principle of promissory estoppel, because 
156 tractors were imported by it (the appellant) under the validly issued 
scheme dated 1.7.2005 as amended, especially when afterwards, by means 
of notification dated 5.6.2006, the Government had allowed import of 
tractors at zero rated duty and that permission was for every citizen. 
Besides, the appellant is also entitled to the release of tractors on zero duty 
for the reason that the Federal Government has already withdrawn the 
petition filed against the impugned judgment.  
 C.A. NO.2755 OF 2006 
-: 4 :-
4. 
 
In this regard it is to be noted that the learned High Court vide 
impugned judgment quashed the whole proceedings for the grant of 
permission, etc., for the import of tractors at zero rated duty. The Federal 
Government, though initially challenged the same before this Court 
through a civil petition but after having realized that there were 
illegalities/mala fides in the process of grant of permission to import the 
tractors, withdrew the petition filed by it, meaning thereby that the Federal 
Government accepted the impugned judgment to the that extent. Thus, the 
fact of withdrawal of the petition by the Federal Government does not 
provide any support to the case of the appellants.  
5. 
 
Adverting to the main contention of the learned counsel for the 
appellant that the appellant is entitled to release of the tractors, which have 
already been imported at zero rated duty on the principle of promissory 
estoppel, it is to be noted that there is no cavil to the proposition that when 
in exercise of administrative power conferred under a statute, a concession 
is granted as regards customs duty and other Government dues for a fixed 
period and afterwards it was sought to be withdrawn in exercise of a similar 
power, the said concession or benefit could not be withdrawn by virtue of 
Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, unless the statute itself had 
conferred such a power on the executive authority, otherwise, the same 
shall be protected under the principle of promissory estoppel. Reliance may 
be placed on the judgments of this Court reported as Collector of Central 
Excise and Land Customs and 3 others Vs. Azizuddin Industries Ltd., 
Chittagong (PLD 1970 SC 439), Al-Samrez Enterprise Vs. The 
Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1917) and M/s Friendship Textile 
Mills and others Vs. Government of Balochistan and others (2004 
SCMR 346). However, in order to bring the case within the four corners of 
the principle of promissory estoppel, it is mandatory upon the person 
claiming the benefit under it, to show that the offer was validly made by the 
 C.A. NO.2755 OF 2006 
-: 5 :-
competent 
authority 
and 
thereafter 
permission/approval 
was 
granted/made in a rightful, judicious and transparent manner, without 
there being any hint of mala fide, arbitrariness, excessive jurisdiction, 
favoritism or non-transparency therein. In the instant case, after thorough 
examination of the record the learned High Court held that the procedure of 
the grant of permission to import tractors at zero rated duty suffered from 
arbitrariness, excessive jurisdiction, favoritism, lack of transparency, 
subjectivity and was also not in accordance with the decision of ECC; 
therefore, the principles of promissory estoppel were not attracted in the 
facts and circumstances of the instant case. 
7. 
 
As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the 
appellant that when afterwards, through notification dated 5.6.2006, the 
Government had allowed everyone to import tractors at zero rated duty, the 
tractors already imported by the appellant should have also been released 
on zero rated duty, suffice it to say that admittedly the said notification was 
applicable prospectively and therefore, the appellant could not benefit from 
the same by extending the operation thereof (notification) to past transactions, 
i.e. the tractors which were imported under the scheme issued on 1.7.2005. 
Thus, the said argument is repelled as being misconceived. 
8. 
 
The foregoing are the reasons of our short order of even date 
whereby the instant appeal was dismissed.  
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
25th of September, 2018 
Not Approved For Reporting 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Waqas Naseer/*