Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1341 2023 SLD 1341 2023 PTD 750 (2024) 130 TAX 662
Peshawar High Court
Customs Reference No. 12-P of 2022, decided on 31st March,2022. Date of hearing: 31st March, 2022
Abdul Shakoor and Syed Arshad Ali, JJ
Rahat Ali Khan Nahqi for Petitioner. Waqas-ur-Rehman for
Respondent No. 1

COLLECTOR CUSTOMS MCC, PESHAWAR

VS

PAINDA NOOR and another

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 2(s),16,17,157(2),194B,18,79,178,196

Law: Import and Export Control Act, 1956

Section: 3(3)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-----Ss.2(s), 16, 18, 79, 178 & 196---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(3) &(10)---Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, Clause (b)---Reference---Vehicle used in smuggling---Confiscation---Barring clause---Confiscation of vehicle by authorities on the plea that it had been used in smuggling---Validity---In order to attract baring clause i.e. clause "b" of Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, authorities had to establish that smuggled goods which a vehicle was carrying were concealed in false cavities or the vehicle was wholly and exclusively used in smuggling of goods---Word wholly and exclusively used in Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, were used in adjective form which meant "in its entirety" and was being used for no purpose other than smuggling as the word exclusively denoted---In the present case neither the smuggled goods were concealed in false cavities of vehicle in question nor it was the normal course of business of the owner of vehicle to use the same for the purpose of smuggling---When the vehicle in question had no history of being repeatedly involved in smuggling of goods then under Cl. 2(f) of Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, it could be released against payment of redemption fine and vehicle would not be liable to outright confiscation under clause (b) of Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal---Reference was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Taxing statute---Two interpretations---Principle---Taxing statue usually contains charging and machinery provisions--- Former fixes liability to pay tax and has to be constructed strictly--- Where two reasonable interpretations are possible, one which favors the tax payer should be accepted. Asbestos Cement's case (1992) 66 Tax 140 and Trustee of Port Karachi's case 1989 PTD 1048 rel. JUDGMENT: SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE:---.--- This is a Custom Reference filed by the Collector Customs under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 (Act), against the judgment/order passed by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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