| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 8 2016 SLD 8 (2016) 113 TAX 111 2016 PTD 2355 2016 SCMR 842 2016 PTCL 105 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1600 OF 2006, DATE of order and hearing: 04.01.2016
MR., JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR MR., JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB MR., JUSTICE TARIQ PERVEZ
For the Appellant. Mr. Issaq Ali Qazi, ASC For the
Respondent (1). Raja Muhammad Iqbal, ASC Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR For
Respondents (2-3). Ex-parte
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1600 OF 2006, DATE of order and hearing: 04.01.2016
MR., JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR MR., JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB MR., JUSTICE TARIQ PERVEZ
For the Appellant. Mr. Issaq Ali Qazi, ASC For the
Respondent (1). Raja Muhammad Iqbal, ASC Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR For
Respondents (2-3). Ex-parte
Indus Trading and Contracting Company
VS
Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others ... --Respondents
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 18,18(1),18(2),19,25
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199,199(1)
JUDGMENT FAISAL ARAB, J.-Brief facts of this appeal are that at the end of 1995 and early 1996, the appellant imported two consignments of medicines said to be living saving drugs. The import of such drugs was free from Customs duty on the basis of the concession granted under the Finance Act of 1995. Before these consignments arrived at the port, the Federal Government issued SRO No. 1050(1)/95 dated 29th October, 1995 imposing 5% ad valorem regulatory duty which the appellant paid and got the consignments released. Subsequently, the appellant challenged the levy of regulatory duty on the consignments in Constitution Petition No. D-1659/1996 that was filed in the High Court of Sindh. Thereafter, on 07.08.2002, the appellant withdrew it after seeking permission to file it afresh. A couple of months later, the appellant filed another constitution petition bearing No. D-226/2003 challenging the imposition of the same regulatory duty. This petition was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 08.03.2006, after holding regulatory duty was rightly charged on goods exempted from customs duty. The appellant then turned to this Court for relief in the present proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Issaq Ali Qazi argued that as long as import of such goods is free from duty on the basis of the concession granted under the Finance Act, 1995, no duty, much less regulatory duty, could have been lawfully charged and the imposition of regulatory duty under the impugned SRO No. 1050(1)/95 being based on subordinate legislation was therefore illegal. He maintained that that imposition of regulatory duty in effect nullified the concession of duty free import that was granted under the provisions of Finance Act, 1995. He further submitted that had the customs duty on such drugs and medicines been zero-rated probably then the regulatory duty could have been levied but as the import was free from customs duty, no duty under any nomenclature could be lawfully imposed and the learned Judges in the High Court failed to appreciate such distinction. He concluded by submitting that this Court may order refund of the regulatory duty that had been unlawfully charged from the…
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