| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 312 1974 SLD 312 1974 PLD 254 |
Sindh High Court
Civil Suits Nos. 284, 265, 330, 375, 387, 411, 415, 418 of 1969; 6 and 161 of 1970, decision dated: 15th February 1974. dates of hearing: 1st, 9th November; 18th December 1973; 11th and 18th January 1974
FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Suits Nos. 284, 265, 330, 375, 387, 411, 415, 418 of 1969; 6 and 161 of 1970, decision dated: 15th February 1974. dates of hearing: 1st, 9th November; 18th December 1973; 11th and 18th January 1974
FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MESSRS DADA LTD., KARACHI
VS
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Law: Import of Goods (Price Equalization Surcharge) Act, 1967
Section: 7
Import of Goods (Price Equalization Surcharge) Act (III of 1967)--S. 7-Provisions of S. 7 operative to legalise retrospectively levy of price differential surcharge-Surcharge levied and collected in pursuance of Notification No. S. R. O. 49 (R)/66 dated 23-4-66 and Public Notice dated 25-4-66-Validated by S. 7-Rules for assessment and collection of price equalization surcharge-Not condition precedent to exercise of powers conferred under pct for ascertainment of price equalization surcharge and its recovery-[Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v, Controller of Imports & Exports P L D 1968 Dacca 894 dissented from]. Section 7 of Import of Goods (Price Equalization Surcharge) Act, 1967 is not open to question on the ground that it purports to give retrospective effect to a levy. Section 7 of Act III of 1967 itself refers to not only levies and collection made in pursuance of notification dated 23-4-66 but also under any rule, order, notification or other instrument made or issued under the Import and Export Control Act, 1950. As regards the assessment of price equalization surcharge it is defined as duty levied under section 3 of Act III of 1967 and that is, the difference between the landed cost and the highest rate declared by the Central Government under section 4. Surely to minus landed cost from the highest rate, which is mere arithmetical exercise, no rules were really required. It would, therefore, appear that rules for the assessment and collection for price equalization surcharge were not a condition precedent to the exercise of powers conferred under Act III of 1967 for the ascertainment of the price equalization surcharge and its recovery. Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd, v. Controller of Imports & Exports P L D 1968 Dacca 894 dissented from. Mir Ahmed Nawaz Khan Bughti v. Superintendent, District Jail, Lyallpur and others P L D 1966 S C 357; Mohammad Yusuf v. The Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and others P L D 1968 S C 101; Muhammad Akhtar Hussain and others v. Government of Pakistan and others P L D 1970 S C 146 and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada v. Federation of Pakistan P L D 1973 Kar. 132 ref. JUDGMENT These are ten suits…
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