Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2130 2019 SLD 2130 2019 PTCL 555 2019 PTD 1961
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1029 of 2019, hearing Date : 25-04-2019 (On appeal from the judgment/order Dated 29.03.2016 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in CR No. 4/2015).
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, CHIEF, JUSTICE
Appellant by: Nemo.
Respondent 2 by: M.D. Shahzad, ASC.
Respondents 4-5 by: Ms. Misbah Gulnar Sharif.

M/S. MUJAHID SOAP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD.

VS

CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCHI ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS.

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 179,179(3)

CUSTOMS ACT, 1969 (IV OF 1969) Section 179 The date of conclusion of hearing and for to be reserved cannot be treated as the date of disposal of show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued on 28.8.2013. The order-in-original was issued on 19.02.2014 after one hundred and twenty days of issuance of show cause notice which was expired on 26.12.2013, it is beyond time prescribed in Section 179(3) and is invalid. The show cause notice was issued on 28.08.2013. The order-in-original was issued on 19.02.2014 but at the end thereof the adjudicating officer has given the date of his signature as 18.02.2014. One hundred and twenty days after the issuance of the show cause notice expired on 26.12.2013. The legal question arising for determination in this appeal is whether under the provisions of section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 ("Act") the order-in-original No. 55 of 2014 issued by the respondent Deputy Collector (Adjudication) on 19.02.2014 was decided within the limitation period prescribed in the said provision of the Act. We fail to understand how a decision can be said to have been taken without announcement or communication thereof to the parties. The respondent-Deputy Collector did not even apply for an extension but consumed 157 days to record the reasons for his and to communicate the same to the parties. We cannot accept the proposition that such decision had taken place as and when the hearing was concluded. It is necessary that an adjudicatory decision be recorded and duly communicated to the parties. That has not happened in the present case. Therefore, according to the record of the case, the decision took place on 19.02.2014 and not on 24.12.2013 as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. As a result, the impugned decision given in the case by the respondent was beyond time as prescribed in section 179(3) of the Act. Therefore, the said decision is invalid. A decision cannot said to have been taken without announcement or communication thereof to the parties. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL:---.--- (1). The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the leave granting order of this Court dated…
🔒
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