| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1145 2016 SLD 1145 2016 PTD 1824 |
Sindh High Court
C.Ps. Nos. D-946 of 2013, D-3045 of 2014 and D-128 of 2015, decided on 20th November, 2015. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 2015.
FAISAL ARAB, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J
Abdul Sattar Pirzada and Umair A. Kazi for Petitioners. Abid S. Zuberi for
Respondent No. 3. Kashif Nazeer for
Respondent No. 3 (in C.P. No. D-3045 of 2014 and in C.P. No. D-128 of 2015). Salman Talib-ud-Din, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan.
C.Ps. Nos. D-946 of 2013, D-3045 of 2014 and D-128 of 2015, decided on 20th November, 2015. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 2015.
FAISAL ARAB, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J
Abdul Sattar Pirzada and Umair A. Kazi for Petitioners. Abid S. Zuberi for
Respondent No. 3. Kashif Nazeer for
Respondent No. 3 (in C.P. No. D-3045 of 2014 and in C.P. No. D-128 of 2015). Salman Talib-ud-Din, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan.
ASTRO PLASTICS (PVT.) LTD. through Company Secretary and another
VS
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT. OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 25
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 25---Pakistan Customs Tariff Code---Duty structure---Classification---Discrimination---Petitioner was manufacturer of BOPET film (polyester films) and its grievance was that duty for PET Resin for making PET film was higher to PET Resin imported for making bottles and polyester yarn, which was discriminatory---Validity---Yarn grade was not only being used for textile purpose that catered to the most fundamental need of people (clothing) but for export as well, whereas film grade resin was being applied for making sticker etc., which were put on plastic bottles used in many drinks (plastic industry) and consumed locally---Such was not merely chemical formula of subject raw material (Intrinsic Viscosity) that was considered solely for imposing a certain customs duty on its import but the purpose and object for which was physically utilized by two different manufacturers that mattered the most in introducing two different regimes of duty on the same item---Rationale behind such decision was not against the principle of reasonable classification or any of the fundamental rights of petitioners to justify invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution---End use of a particular item, the purpose for which it was being used and import and the scope/limit to which it was being used could be the rational factors to maintain two different regimes of duty on the import of given items---Petitioner was not entitled to receive back differential amount of duty---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. ORDER MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Alleged disparity in classifying the duty structure for the import of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) Resin has been essentially challenged in the these petitions. Of a particular reference is a notification dated 04.03.2013, which is also under dispute here, whereby it has been laid down that if PET Resin is imported by BOPET film manufacturers, the duty would be 8%. 2. Petitioner, a Pakistani company, is one of the only two manufacturers of BOPET film (polyester films) in Pakistan. PET Resin is the raw material used for making PET bottles, Polyester yarn…
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