Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 196(1),196(10)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 196(1) & 196(10)---Reference to High Court by Customs department under S. 196 of the Customs Act, 1969---Authorization of relevant customs officer---Question in issue in the present case was whether the Reference filed under S. 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 ("the Act") by the customs department bore authorization of the Collector of Customs in the terms required by subsection (1) of S. 196 of the Act---High Court by way of impugned came to the conclusion that although the note sheet for the case contained a request for authorization of the Additional Collector for filing a Customs Reference before the High Court, the Collector did not as such sign the document in order to comply the statutory requirement that such authorization must be in writing---Accordingly, for the said omission the Reference was dismissed as having been filed incompetently by its signatory, the Additional Collector---Held, that one of the paragraphs of the office note sheet of the case contained the signature of the Collector of Customs and the stamp of his office---Thereafter, again while approving authorization of the Additional Collector of Customs (HQ) for filing the Customs Reference, signing the power of attorney and letter of authority to the counsel, the Collector signed in approval of the relevant paragraph under his office stamp---Supreme Court in such circumstances directed that Customs Reference shall be deemed to be pending before the High Court and be heard and decided on merits---Appeal was allowed with the observations that the matter in issue came before the High Court in the year 2010, the impugned decision involving a minor technical issue was taken in 2013 and now the matter was being decided by the Supreme Court (in the year 2019); that subsection (10) of S. 196 of the Act took care of such objections, and the clear purpose and the effect of the said provision was that such technical and superfluous objections were put to rest at the outset so that the matter may be decided on merits. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE:---.--- The respondent has been served but he neither appeared before the office nor arranged his…

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