| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 205 2021 SLD 205 2021 PTD 181 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 56384 of 2020, decided on 9th November, 2020.
JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Khaliq Safrani for Petitioner. Ali Asad Gondal, Advocate/Legal Advisor for
Respondent-Customs.
Writ Petition No. 56384 of 2020, decided on 9th November, 2020.
JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Khaliq Safrani for Petitioner. Ali Asad Gondal, Advocate/Legal Advisor for
Respondent-Customs.
M.D STEEL FURNACE
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 193
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S.193---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Alternate remedy, availability of---Appeal to Collector (Appeals)---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Deputy Collector Customs (Adjudication) before the High Court on the ground that it had paid duty/taxes as per calculation of the department, however, its goods were not being released---Validity---Specific remedy of appeal under S.193, Customs Act, 1969, was available to the petitioner, which he had not availed rather instituted the constitutional petition---Jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked in the wake of availability of an alternate efficacious remedy---Constitutional petition was dismissed. Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others 2016 SCMR 842; DR. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813 and Muhammad Abbasi v. S.H.O. Bhara Kahu and 7 others PLD 2010 SC 969 ref. ORDER JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Through the instant Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution), the Petitioner has challenged order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Respondent No.3. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he paid duty/taxes as per calculation of the Respondents however, goods are not being released to him. It is also his case that the goods and container are not the part of recovery memo. however, the Respondents linked it with adjudication proceedings and caused material irregularities while passing impugned order. 3. Learned legal advisor of the Respondents objected to maintainability of the petition on the ground that against the impugned order, the Petitioner has remedy of appeal before the Collector (Appeals). 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. It evinces from the record that the Petitioner earlier approached this Court with the request to issue directions to the Respondents to decide his representation dated 20.08.2020. Pursuant to aforesaid directions, the Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced…
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