Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 196(5)

ORDER Through above listed Reference Applications, the Applicant has impugned Judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed in Customs Appeal No. K-987/2015 and other identical connected matters proposing the following questions of law:- a. Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal after announcing a short order accepting the Applicants Customs Appeal No. K-987/2015 has erred by issuing a final adverse order against the Applicant? b. Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that the goods imported by the Applicant, Wannate 8019, fall for classification under PCT Heading 3824.9091 as opposed to PCT heading 3909.5000? c. Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal has erred in not extending the benefit of SRO- 659(I)/2007 to the Applicant on goods imported under PCT Heading 3909.5000 and alternatively under PCT heading 3824.9091? d. Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal erred by holding that the benefit of SRO 1125(I)/2011 was not available to the Applicant on the subject consignment? e. Whether the Customs Appellate Tribunal has erred by holding that officers of Customs have the jurisdiction to recover and adjudicate upon alleged short paid sales tax on imports? f. Whether penalties and fines can be imposed on the Applicant under the legal and factual circumstances of the case? On 07.09.2020, the Applicants Counsel was confronted as to Question No. a and the anomaly in this matter, wherein, the Tribunal had passed a short order on 09.07.2019 by allowing the Appeals, and thereafter while recording the Reasons, not only dismissed the Appeals; but there was no mention of any short order. The Court was of the opinion that since the issue could not be looked into under s.196 of the Customs Act, therefore, a writ petition may be an appropriate remedy. Thereafter the Applicant filed Petition No.4297/2020 by impugning the said order(s) and the manner in which proceeding had culminated before the Tribunal, whereby, the reasons were recorded as against its own short order. On 23.11.2020 learned Counsel for the Petitioner was confronted with the case reported as PLD 2015 SC 322 (The State v. Daniyal alias Dani), wherein, in somewhat similar circumstances, the Honble Supreme…

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