Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1607 2015 SLD 1607 2015 PTD 279 2015 PTCL 689
Sindh High Court
Suit No.1090 and C.M.As. Nos. 9174 and 14478 of 2013, decision dated: 22-04-2014. dates of hearing: 14th February and 10-03-2014
MUNIB AKHTAR, J
Sohail Muzaffar and Imtiaz Mazhar Lari for Plaintiff. Shakeel Ahmed for Defendant No. 3

Messrs PT. SYNERGY OIL NUSANTARA through Duly Constituted Attorney, Karachi

VS

Messrs EVERGREEN MARINE CORPORATION (TAIWAN) LTD., and 5 others

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 138

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 138

Law: Customs Rules, 2001

Section: 86,87,88,89

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------S.138---Frustrated cargo, dealing of---Principle---Term 'frustrated cargo' is applied if either (a) goods are brought into customs-station by reason of inadvertence or misdirection; or (b) having been brought into a customs-station, the consignee is untraceable---Inadvertence or misdirection relevant for the purposes of S. 138 of Customs Act, 1969, must relate to bringing of goods into a customs-station---If inadvertence or misdirection relates to any other matter, that is not relevant for the purposes of S. 138 of Customs Act, 1969. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 138---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 86, 87, 88 & 89---Suit for declaration and injunction---Frustrated cargo---Permission to re-export---Plaintiff was a foreign company and goods in question were shipped to Pakistan for onward transmission to Afghanistan under Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Treaty against bill of lading in the name of Pakistani company---Original importer backed out and there was a new importer willing to import goods to Afghanistan but Customs authorities did not permit and directed to auction the goods---Plea raised by plaintiff was that goods in question had become "frustrated cargo" and plaintiff was to be allowed to re-export them without payment of any duties and taxes etc.---Validity---Manifest error was made by authorities and actual exercise as required by law (i.e. under S. 138 of Customs Act, 1969 and Rr. 86 to 89 of Customs Rules, 2001) was not carried out---Focus remained exclusively on IGM and in effect, subsequent bills were disregarded---Relevant documents were not examined from correct statutory perspective and the exercise must be carried out in accordance with law so that a proper determination was made as to whether or not the goods could be re-exported---Such exercise could not be carried out by High Court as civil court, as it was statutory duty of Collector of Customs---High Court directed Collector of Customs to carry out such exercise, as it had already not undertaken by him---High Court further directed Collector of Customs to give a hearing to plaintiff and after taking into consideration the IGM as well as all relevant…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492