Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 873 2017 SLD 873
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CIVIL APPEAL No. 450 OF 2010, Date of hearing & order: 25.11.2016
MR., JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR MR., JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB MR., JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
For the appellant(s): Raja Muhammad Iqbal, ASC For the respondent(s): Mr. Azhar Maqbool Shah, ASC

Collector of Customs Appraisement, Collectorate, Customs House, Karachi ... --Appellant

VS

M/S. Gul Rehman, Proprietor M/S G. Kin Enterprises, Ghazali Street, Nasir Road, Sialkot ... --Respondent

Law:

Section:

THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MIAN SAQIB NISAR, Justice:---.--- This appeal with the leave of the Court turns on whether the respondent is entitled to the refund of customs duty paid (along with the penalty), when, as per the case of the appellant the respondent was required to prove that the incidence of customs duty had not been passed onto the consumer in terms of the provisions of Section 19A of the Customs Act, 1969 (the Act), which it failed to do. 2. The facts are that the respondent is an importer of fabrics and it made a declaration in the bill of entry that the imported goods were covered by heading 5407.5200, attracting 14% customs duty. The department controverted this declaration and claimed that instead the correct PTC heading would be 5903.1000, on which 25% customs duty was payable. Pursuant to a show-cause notice, an order-in-original dated 3.7.2006 was passed in which the latter heading was held to be applicable and the imported consignments were confiscated, an additional penalty was imposed and the respondent was given the option under Section 181 of the Act to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine. In order to get the consignments released the respondent made the requisite payments but simultaneously assailed the order-in-original before the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax Federal Excise (Appeal) [Collector (Appeals)] who, vide order dated 8.12.2006, accepted the plea of the respondent and determined that the appropriate heading was indeed 5407.5200 and there was no mis-declaration by the respondent. The department has admitted before us today that they did not challenge this order and thus for all intents and purposes it attained finality. Be that as it may, on account of the favourable order of the Collector (Appeals) the respondent sought refund of the amount paid by it on the basis of the order-in-original dated 3.7.2006. The department declined to refund the said amount. Instead, vide another order-in-original dated 5.3.2008 the department held that as the incidence of the duty had been passed onto the consumer by the respondent therefore it was not entitled to any refund in terms of Section 33 and 19A of the Act. This order was…
🔒
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