IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN. 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA. 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 
2600 OF 2015 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
(On appeal against the judgment dt. 28.08.2015 and 8.9.2015 
passed by the High Court of Sindh Karachi in Constitution Petitions 
No.D-1494, D-873, D-1581, D-1582, D-1583, D-1729, D-1730, 2442, D-
2758,D-2759, D-2760, D-3541, D-4015, D.4016, D-4087, D-4187, D-4521, 
4583, D-4561, D-4563, D-4381, D-4289, D-2414, D-4769, D-4014, D-
4218, D-4562, D-4564, D-4380, D-4565, D-4767, D-2972, D-4289, D-
4218, 4377-D, 2387, D-4218, D-4072, 4032-D, 4370-D, 4402-D, 4217-D, 
4886-D, 4218-D, D-344, D-4768, D-4217, D-1877, D-2387, D-4370, D-
4378, D-344, D-4796, D-4288 of 2015).         
 
 
Majeed and Sons Steels (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2532/15) 
 
Shanghai Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2533/15) 
 
Razaque Steels (Pvt) Ltd. and another.  
(in CP.2534/15) 
 
Nawab Brothers Steel Mill (Pvt) Ltd and another. 
(in CP.2535/15) 
 
Dewan Steel Mills. 
(in CP.2536/15) 
 
M/s Union Steel Industries. 
(in CP.2537/15) 
 
Dewan Steel Mills. 
(in CP.2538/15) 
 
Shanghai Industries(Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2539/15) 
 
Dewan Steel Mills. 
(in CP.2540/15) 
 
M/s Union Steel Industries. 
(in CP.2541/15) 
 
Nawab Brothers Steel Mills (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2542/15) 
 
Shanghai Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2543/15) 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
2
 
 
Ittehad Steel Industries. 
(in CP.2544/15) 
 
M/s Union Steel Industries and another.  
(in CP.2545/15) 
 
Dewan Steel Mills. 
(in CP.2546/15) 
 
Razaque Steels (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2547/15) 
 
Shanghai Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2548/15) 
 
Shanghai Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2549/15) 
 
M/s Umer Traders and others. 
(in CP.2580/15) 
 
Abdul Wahab. 
(in CP.2594/15) 
 
Sheikh Nadeem Anwar. 
(in CP.2595/15) 
 
Khizer Arif. 
(in CP.2596/15) 
 
Abdul Salam.  
(in CP.2597/15) 
 
M/s BBJ Pipe Industries Ltd. 
(in CP.2598/15) 
 
M/s Bashir Pipe Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2599/15) 
 
M/s Supreme Tube Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2600/15) 
 
M/s AN Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2602/15) 
 
M/s Khalid Pipe Mills (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2603/15) 
 
Mansoor Ahmed Khan. 
(in CP.2608/15) 
 
Sheikh Nadeem Anwar. 
(in CP.2609/15) 
 
M/s National Tubes (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2610/15) 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
3
 
 
 
Shahid Majee. 
(in CP.2611/15) 
 
M/s Sheikh Pipe Mills (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2612/15) 
 
M/s Win Pipe Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2613/15) 
 
M/s Modern Pipe Mills (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2614/15) 
 
M/s AKK Enterprises (SMC-Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2615/15) 
 
M/s Mehboob Steel Pipe Industry. 
(in CP.2616/15) 
 
M/s M.P. Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2617/15) 
 
M/s Steel Craft (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2618/15) 
 
M/s Samad Pipe Industries Ltd. 
(in CP.2619/15) 
 
M/s Jamal Pipe Industries Ltd. 
(in CP.2620/15) 
 
M/s Grandeur Metals (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2621/15) 
 
M/s Abdul Haq Pipe Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2622/15) 
 
M/s Farooq Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2623/15) 
 
M/s Bilal Steel Industries. 
(in CP.2624/15) 
 
Shahid Majeed. 
(in CP.2625/15) 
 
Muhammad Amjad Sharif. 
(in CP.2626/15) 
 
Kamran Butt. 
(in CP.2627/15) 
 
Muhammad Amjad Sharif. 
(in CP.2628/15) 
 
M/s Pak Pipe Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
4
 
 
(in CP.2629/15) 
 
M/s Karachi Tube Mills (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2630/15) 
 
Sheikh Nadeem Anwar. 
(in CP.2631/15) 
 
M/s Win Pipe Industries (Pvt) Ltd. 
(in CP.2632/15) 
 
M/s Win Pipe Industries (Pvt) Ltd.  
(in CP.2633/15)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioners 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary,  
M/o Economic Affairs, Islamabad and others. 
…Respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in all cases) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the petitioners:  
Mr. Munir A. Malik, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shahbaz Butt, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Khurram Saeed, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman, AOR. 
 
For the respondents: 
Raja Muhammad Iqbal, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Khurram Raza, ASC 
Mr. Ali Waheed Khan, Dy. Director of 
Customs MCC-Appraisement (EAST) 
Karachi 
 
Date of hearing:  
15.09.2015. (Judgment Reserved) 
 
 
 
 
 
J U D G M E N T      
 
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- These petitions for leave to 
appeal have arisen out of the judgment dated 28.08.2015 of a 
Division Bench of Sindh High Court whereby it dismissed the petitions 
filed by the petitioners. 
2. 
 
The issue urged by the petitioners before the High Court 
through a Constitution Petition and now before this Court through a 
petition for leave to appeal is that the cumulative incidence of 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
5
 
 
customs-duties leviable under sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) of section 
18 of the Customs Act shall not exceed the rates agreed to by the 
Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements. The 
learned ASC by referring to clause 5 (b) of Article XXIV of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade contended that duties and 
other regulations of commerce maintained in each of the 
constituent territories and  applicable at the formation of free trade 
area or the adoption of such interim agreement to the trade of 
contracting parties not included in such area or not parties to such 
agreement shall not be higher or more restrictive than the 
corresponding duties and other regulations of commerce existing in 
the same constituent territories prior to the formation of the free-
trade area, or interim agreement as the case may be. The learned 
ASC by referring to proviso to sub-section 5 of section 18 of the 
Customs Act contended that the cumulative incidence of customs 
duties leviable under sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) shall not exceed 
the rates agreed to by the Government of Pakistan under 
multilateral trade agreements. Any duty, the learned ASC 
maintained, levied in derogation of clause 5(b) of Article XXIV and 
proviso to sub-section 5 of section 18 of the Customs Act shall not 
have any effect. Bilateral agreement, the learned ASC added, 
doesn’t find mention in proviso to sub-section 5 of section 18 of the 
Customs Act but this will not have much significance as every 
agreement even if bilateral in nature becomes multilateral when it 
passes through the mechanism provided by clauses 7 and 8 of 
Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The 
learned ASC by winding up his arguments contended that where 
the duty at the time of conclusion of the General Agreement on 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
6
 
 
Tariffs and Trade was 5% it could not exceed that thereafter. When 
asked what does the expression “rates agreed to” used in the 
proviso mean, the learned ASC by answering the question again 
referred to clause 5(b) of Article XXIV of the Customs Act.  
3. 
 
The learned ASC appearing on behalf of the 
respondents contended that the question posed by the bench is 
answered by Part-A-2 of the table. He, by referring to the relevant 
table of tariffs and import by product groups contended that the 
maximum duty agreed to is 75% while for the most favoured nations 
the maximum is 35%. If this aspect of the case, the learned ASC 
contended, is taken into account, then the duties in any form do 
not exceed what was agreed to by the Government of Pakistan 
under the multilateral trade agreement. The impugned judgment, 
the learned ASC maintained, having been rendered after 
considering all the conceivable aspects of the proposition is 
unassailable from whatever angle it is looked at.  
4.  
 
We have gone through the record, the relevant 
provisions and considered the arguments addressed at the bar. 
5. 
 
Before we appreciate the controversy stirred before us 
at the bar, it is worthwhile to refer to section 18 of the Customs Act 
which reads as under :-  
“18. Goods dutiable.__ (1) Except as hereinafter provided, 
customs duties shall be levied at such rates as are prescribed 
in the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being 
in force on. – 
 
a) goods imported into Pakistan. 
b)  goods brought from any foreign country to any 
customs station, and without payment of duty there, 
transshipped or transported for, or thence carried to, 
and imported at any other customs station; and  
c)  goods brought in bond from one customs station to 
another. 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
7
 
 
2) 
No export duty shall be levied on the goods exported 
from Pakistan. 
 
3) 
The Federal Government may, by notification in the 
official Gazette, levy, subject to such conditions, 
limitations or restrictions as it may deem fit to impose, a 
regulatory duty on all or any of the goods to be 
imported or exported, as specified in the First Schedule 
at a rate not exceeding one hundred per cent of the 
value of such goods as determined under section 25, or 
as the case may be, section 25-A; 
 
4) 
The regulatory duty levied under sub-section (3) shall, - 
a)  be in addition to any duty imposed under sub-
section (1) or under any other law for the time being in 
force;  and  
 
b)  be leviable on and from the day specified in the 
notification 
issued 
under 
that 
sub-section, 
notwithstanding the fact that the issue of the official 
Gazette in which such notification appears is published 
at any time after that day.  
 
5) 
The Federal Government may, by notification in the 
official Gazette, levy an additional customs-duty on 
such imported goods as are specified in the First 
Schedule, at a rate not exceeding thirty-five per cent of 
value of such goods as determined under section 25, or 
as the case may be, section 25-A:  
 
 
Provided that the cumulative incidence of customs-duties 
leviable under sub-sections (1), (3) and (5) shall not exceed 
the rates agreed to by the Government of Pakistan under 
multilateral trade agreements.  
 
6. 
The additional customs-duty levied under sub-section 
(5) shall be - 
 
a)  in addition to any duty imposed under sub-sections 
(1) and (3) or under any other law for the time being in 
force; and  
 
b)  leviable on and from the day specified in the 
notification 
issued 
under 
that 
sub-section, 
notwithstanding the fact that the official Gazette in 
which such notification appears is published at any time 
after that day.”  
 
6. 
 
How far clause 5 of Article XXIV of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is restrictive of the duties to be 
imposed on the goods imported in Pakistan also merits a careful 
look which reads as under :-  
“Accordingly, the provisions of this Agreement shall not 
prevent, as between the territories of contracting parties, the 
formation of a customs union or of a free-trade area or the 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
8
 
 
adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation 
of a customs union or of a free-trade area; provided that : 
 
a)  with respect to a customs union, or an interim 
agreement leading to a formation of a customs union, 
the duties and other regulations of commerce imposed 
at the institution of any such union or interim agreement 
in respect of trade with contracting parties not parties 
to such union or agreement shall not on the whole be 
higher or more restrictive than the general incidence of 
the duties and regulations of commerce applicable in 
the constituent territories prior to the formation of such 
union or the adoption of such interim agreement, as the 
case may be;  
 
b) 
with respect to a free trade area, or an interim 
agreement leading to the formation of a free-trade 
area, the duties and other regulations of commerce 
maintained in each if the constituent territories and 
applicable at the formation of such free-trade area or 
the adoption of such interim agreement to the trade of 
contracting parties not included in such area or not 
parties to such agreement shall not be higher or more 
restrictive than the corresponding duties and other 
regulations 
of 
commerce 
existing 
in 
the 
same 
constituent territories prior to the formation of the free-
trade area, or interim agreement as the case may be.  
 
c) 
any interim agreement referred to in sub-
paragraphs (a) and (b) shall include a plan and 
schedule for the formation of such a customs union or 
of such a free-trade area within a reasonable length of 
time.” 
 
7. 
 
A look at the proviso to sub-section 5 of section 18 of 
the Customs Act in general and the words “rates agreed to” in 
particular shows that rates have all along been agreed to. 
Reference to Part-A-2 of the relevant table will clinch the whole 
matter as it not only provides final bound duties but also duties 
prescribed for the most favoured nations.  Regulatory duty imposed 
through the impugned S.R.O does not in any case exceed the 
duties prescribed by the table. Once the table referred to above 
shows the rates agreed to, reference to any other provision of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade would not be of much 
significance. When we asked the learned ASCs as to how does the 
expression “rates agreed to” imply or contemplate the duties in 
force at the time of executing the multilateral agreement when 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
9
 
 
they were in force independently of such agreement, he could not 
give any satisfactory reply and rightly so because proviso to sub-
section 5 of section 18 of the Customs Act being clear and 
unequivocal does not admit of the interpretation sought to be 
placed thereon by the learned ASCs for the petitioner. Had the 
proviso been inserted before the execution of the agreement, the 
argument advanced by the learned ASC would have had some 
force. But where the insertion of the proviso was made long after 
the execution of the agreement, the words “agreed to” cannot be 
lightly ignored. The rates reflected in the relevant heading viz-a-viz 
the most favoured nations clearly point to what was agreed to. An 
effort was made to turn the bilateral agreement into a multilateral 
agreement by alluding to what has been provided by clauses 7 
and 8 of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
but an agreement which is essentially bilateral cannot be given 
multilateral hue especially when it is between the two nations. 
Much stress was laid on Article 8 of Free Trade Agreement between 
Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Government of 
Peoples Republic of China providing for progressive elimination of 
Customs Duty on goods originating in the territory of another party 
but it does not provide anywhere that the rates agreed to would 
cease to have effect as soon as the agreement is entered into. The 
words “progressive elimination” used in the Article envision step by 
step rather than immediate elimination of the duties.  
8. 
 
Absence of the word bilateral from the proviso to sub-
section 5 of section 18 of the Customs Act being significant and self-
speaking further narrows the gamut of controversy. We, thus cannot 
read bilateral in the proviso when it is not there. When the provisions 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
10
 
 
of the Customs Act are clear and unambiguous, we would not like 
to supply omission and read in the statute what has been 
deliberately omitted. “It is not our function, as was held by Mr. 
Justice Walsh, in the case of Attorney General. v. Bihari, re Australia 
Factors Limited (1966) 67 S. R. (N.S.W) 150; to repair the blunders 
that are to be found in the legislation.” Let them be corrected by 
the legislature itself if at all they constitute blunders.  
9. 
 
The questions whether an agreement or treaty be it 
bilateral or multilateral, can be stretched to alter or override an 
express and unambiguous provision of the statute and whether its 
breach, if any, can be sought to be repaired through the Courts of 
law unless they have been vested with such jurisdiction? In the case 
of Ms. Shehla Zia. v. Wapda (PLD 1994 SC 693), this Court while 
dealing with a similar question held as under :-  
“The 
concern 
for 
protecting 
environment 
was 
first 
internationally recognized when the declaration of United 
Nations Conference on the Human Environment was 
adopted at the Stockholm on 16.6.1972. Thereafter it had 
taken two decades to create awareness and consensus 
among the countries when in 1992 Rio Declaration was 
adopted. Pakistan is a signatory to this declaration and 
according to Dr. Perwaiz Hasan although it has not been 
ratified or enacted, the principle so adopted has it own 
sanctity and it should be implemented, if not in letter, at 
least in spirit. An international agreement between the 
nations if signed by any country is always subject to 
ratification, but it can be enforced as a law only when 
legislation is made by the country through its legislature. 
Without framing a law in terms of the international 
agreement the covenants of such agreement cannot be 
implemented as a law nor do they bind down any party.”   
 
In the case of Societe Generale De Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan 
through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division, Islamabad 
(2002 SCMR 1694), this Court reaffirmed what was held in the case 
of Ms. Shehla Zia held as under :-  
“Admittedly, in Pakistan, the provisions of the Treaty were 
not incorporated through legislation into the laws of the 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO. 2532 TO 2549 AND 2580 OF 2015 AND 2594 TO 2600 OF 2015 
 AND 2602 TO 2603 OF 2015 AND 2608 TO 2633 OF 2015. 
 
 
11
 
 
Country, therefore, the same did not have the effect of 
altering the existing laws, as such, rights arising therefrom 
called treaty rights cannot be enforced through Court as in 
such a situation, the Court is not vested with the power to 
do so.  
 
It may be significantly mentioned here that 
according to Article 175 (2) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, no Court has any jurisdiction unless 
conferred by or under any law or the Constitution, 
therefore, treaty unless was incorporated into the law so 
that it become part of Municipal Laws of the Country, no 
Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce any right arising 
therefrom.” 
   
10. 
 
Above all else, when cumulative incidence of customs-
duties leviable under sub-section (1), (3) and (5) of section 18 of the 
Customs Act does not exceed the rates agreed to by the 
Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements, we 
don’t think the petitioners could make out a case for issuance of 
the writ asked for.  The view taken by the High Court thus appears 
to be correct and un-exceptionable.  
11. 
 
For the reasons discussed above, these petitions being 
without merit are dismissed and the leave asked for is refused.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Announced in open Court at Islamabad on 18.09.2015. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’ 
MAZ