Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1157 2019 SLD 1157 2019 PTD 1006
Customs Appellate Tribunal
Cus. No. 245/PB of 2016, decision Dated: 03-04-2018, hearingDate : 29-01-2018 Per Qurban Ali Khan, Member (Technical)Syed Sardar Hussain Shah Hussain, Member (Judicial)
SYED SARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL) DR. SYED MUHAMMAD ANWAR, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL) QURBAN ALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Istiaq Ahmad for Appellant.Muhammad Azeem, Supdt. and Fayaz Khattak, Inspector for
Respondents.

M/S. GADOON TEXTILE MILLS LTD.VSCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 18,18(2)(6),19,30,32(3A),156(1)(10A)(14) ,179

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4

Law: Customs Rules, 2001

Section: R.307A,352(6a),2ndSchedule

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 156(1)(10-A)(14), 18, 19 & 32(3A)---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 307A---Violation of condition in respect of exempted goods---Short-levied duty---Unaccounted-for un-exported goods---Show-cause notice---Scope---Department during post exportation audit of DTRE approval observed that the appellant/unit had deposited duty/taxes on the left-over quantity of goods not consumed during the validity period of DTRE on concessionary rates---Collector of Customs (Adjudication) assessed the left-over quantity of DTRE bond to statutory duty---Validity---Appellant had two options under the DTRE rules; firstly, either it could have sought extension from the concerned authority for utilization of the goods in question for manufacturing; secondly, appellant could have sold out those goods to another DTRE user without payment of duty and taxes---Appellant did not exercise any of the said two options, but used one concessionary regime, which was DTRE and hence, could not avail another exemption notification at the same time for the same goods---Appellant had sold out the goods in question in open market at market price and did not deserve to claim concessionary treatment, as the benefit of exemption could not be extended to local market---Concessionary notification, which appellant could have availed for local disposal of goods related to import stage, had already passed in the case---Appellant having obtained permission of the Regulatory Collector before local sale of goods, mala fide could not be attributed to the appellant---Appeal was allowed to the extent of imposition of penalty. [Minority view] Per Syed Sardar Hussain Shah, Member Judicial and Dr. Syed Muhammad Anwar, Member Judicial agreeing [Majority view] (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 156(1)(10-A)(14), 18, 19 & 32(3A)---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 307A, 352(6a)---SRO 450(I)/2001 dated: 18.06.2001---SRO No.567(I)/2006 dated: 05.06.2006---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.4---SRO No. 1125(I)/2011 dated: 31.12.2012---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Second Schedule, Part II, Clause (9C) [since omitted]---Violation of condition in respect of exempted goods---Short-levied…
🔒
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