| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2260 2018 SLD 2260 2018 PLJ 287 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P. No. 1026 of 2017, decision Dated: 15.12.2017. Hearing Date : 13.09.2017.
ATHAR MINALLAH, JUSTICE
Malik Qammar Afzal and Mr. Saad Khan Mayar, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Riffat Hussain Malik, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
W.P. No. 1026 of 2017, decision Dated: 15.12.2017. Hearing Date : 13.09.2017.
ATHAR MINALLAH, JUSTICE
Malik Qammar Afzal and Mr. Saad Khan Mayar, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Riffat Hussain Malik, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH
VS
DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION FBR, RAWALPINDI THROUGH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Customs Act, (IV of 1969), Ss. 17, 79, 80, 168 & 195--Misdeclaration of Imported Goods--Seizure by Custom Authority--Re-examination by custom authorities--Show-cause notice by collector adjudication--Claim of exemption by petitioner denied by custom--Petitioner contended that imported goods were examined and assessment was completed, therefore assessment orders could not have been reopened by custom authority contended that Section 168 of Act, 1969 empowers intelligence officers to seize and confiscates imported goods--Validity--Description of imported goods mentioned in goods declaration and other documents presented by petitioner for purposes of clearance is not disputed--Only dispute raise is with regard to classification--It is settled law that determination of classification of imported goods is a mixed question of law and fact--In present case, goods were presented at a notified customs station for assessment--Petitioner had submitted relevant documents after physically examining, had completed assessment, which order was recorded and imported goods were given out of custom charge--There is no allegation relating to "smuggling" or "fiscal fraud"--It is also not alleged that goods were cleared with collusion of custom officials who had examined and then completed assessment--Description of goods mentioned in Goods Declaration and documents delivered for purposes of clearance under Section 79 read with Section 80 are not alleged to be tampered, forged or fake--Dispute raised by officials is to extent of classification of goods imported by petitioner--Petitioner is a regular importer and its financial status and known assets could by no stretch of imagination have given rise to an apprehension that custom duty short levied or not levied could have not have been recovered--Petitioner company itself offered to furnish security to satisfaction of authority as to avoid having its goods unnecessarily seized--It is settled law that where express statutory power is conferred on a public functionary, it should not be pushed too far, for such conferment implies a restraint in operating that power, so as to exercise…
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