Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 872 2015 SLD 872 2015 PTD 2584 (2015) 113 TAX 19
Customs Appellate Tribunal
Appeal No. K-512 of 2014, decided on 10th April, 2015. DATEof hearing: 21st January, 2015.
MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-I
Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellants. Noor Akbar AO and Abdul Ghani EO for
Respondents.

Messrs STAR IMPEX, KARACHIvsDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another Customs

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 24A

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 11,33

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 148,162(1),207

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 4,32(1),32(2),32(3),79(1),80,156,181,179

(a) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)----S. 24-A-Decision by public functionaries-Principles-If any authority, court or tribunal gave findings of fact which were not based on material available on record such findings of fact were illegal, arbitrary, perverse, violative from established principles of appreciating of evidence and not sustainable in law-Every judicial or quasi-judicial findings would be based on reason containing justification for finding in order-Orders which did not contain rebuttal on ground advanced and decision/ s relied upon by the party and also not containing substantial reasons and did not show that these were passed on objective consideration would be treated as illegal, void, arbitrary and result of misuse of authority vested in public functionary. 2007 PTD 2500; 2004 PTD 1973; 2003 PTD 777; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2369; 2005 PTD 2519; 2005 PTD 1189; PLD 1995 SC (Pak) 272 and 1984 SCMR 1014 rel. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 32(1), 32(2) & 179-SRO 886(1)/2012 dated 18-7-2012- Allegation of mis-declaration-Contents of show-cause notice showed that there was no revenue loss by virtue of alleged mis-declaration- Importer had not submitted any forged/false documents/declaration which was evident from show-cause notice-Validity-Sections 32(1) & 32(2) of Customs Act, 1969, were not to be read in isolation, instead in conjunction with S.32(2) or S.32(3) of Customs Act, 1969-Powers vested with Department under S. 179 of Customs Act, 1969 had not been withdrawn through S.R.O. 886(1)/2012 dated 18-7-2012- According to S.R.O. 886(I)/2012 cases involving technical violation of import or export restriction without involvement of any evasion of duty and taxes, would not be adjudicated by adjudicating officer of Customs-Powers of adjudication were specific and empowered by statute. Collector of Customs (Exports) and another v. R.A Hosiery Works 2007 PTD 2215 rel. 2002 PTD 2457; PLD 1971 SC 61; PLD 1973 SC 236; PLD 1964 SC 536; 2001 SCMR 838; 2003 SCMR 1505; 2006 PTD 978; PLD 1971 SC 184; Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs (Exports) PLD 1996 Kar. 68 and Collector of Customs (Exports) and another v. R.A. Hosiery Works 2007 PTD 2215 ref. (c)…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register