| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 3409 2019 SLD 3409 2019 PTD 1723 |
Sindh High Court
C.Ps. Nos. D-6547 of 2016 and D-6367 of 2017, decisiondated: 07-02-2018, dates of hearing: 8th August and27-04-2017.
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE, OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Naveen Merchant Kashif Nazeer for the Pakistan Customs Ms. Masooda Siraj along with Ms. Naheed Parveen, D.A.G. for the State.
C.Ps. Nos. D-6547 of 2016 and D-6367 of 2017, decisiondated: 07-02-2018, dates of hearing: 8th August and27-04-2017.
MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE, OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Naveen Merchant Kashif Nazeer for the Pakistan Customs Ms. Masooda Siraj along with Ms. Naheed Parveen, D.A.G. for the State.
PETITIONER(S): KARACHI TUBES MILLS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, LAHORE AND 48 OTHERS
VS
RESPONDENT(S): THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 19-A,33
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 19-A & 33---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25---Incidence of customs duty---Refund, claim of---Limitation---Discrimination---Inquiry---Fishing and roving exercise---Scope---Importers submitted guarantee/pay orders in form of security to get their goods released without further demurrage to their consignments---After clearance of all duties importers sought refund of their guarantees/security pay orders---Authorities declined to refund the same on plea that it was barred by limitation---Validity---Provisions of S. 33 of Customs Act, 1969 was not applicable therefore, limitation of one year to seek refund would not come into play---Furnishing of guarantee/pay orders in compliance of court order by importers did not tantamount to customs duty being paid within meaning of Customs Act, 1969---Section 33 of Customs Act, 1969 being not applicable, refund had to be made notwithstanding the fact that incidence of customs duty was passed on to customer and therefore, S. 19-A of Customs Act, 1969 was not attracted---Power of authorities under S. 19-A of Customs Act, 1969 did not give authorities a license and unfettered discretion to go on fishing and roving exercise---Power was to be exercised fairly and reasonably by the authorities---Once importer had provided reasonable evidence to show that incidence of duty was not passed on to end user, importer had discharged its burden and it would be upon the authorities to then prove otherwise---Act of authorities to return some of importers guarantees/pay orders while declining to do the same for others who were sailing in the same boat was discriminatory, unfair and violated the Fundamental Rights of importers---High Court directed authorities to return guarantees/pay orders to importers---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Collector of Customs v. Gul Rehman 2017 SCMR 339; Fecto Belarus Tractor Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 2005 PTD 2286 and Orient Color Lab. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Director General, Customs Valuation, Karachi 2011 PTD 1594 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE:---.--- These petitions turn on whether the petitioners are entitled to the refund/release of…
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