Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 19-A,33(1)(4)

Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969)-- ----S. 19-A 33(1)(4)--Import of equipment--Payment of custom duty--Filing of refund claim--Overpaid of custom duty--Benefit of concessionary rate of custom duty--Doctrine of unjust enrichment--Refund claims were declined--Applicability of Ss. 19-A and 33(4)--Challenge to--Appellant fulfilled both conditions precedent for availing benefit of concessionary rate of customs duty under SRO 457--Case of appellant is on a better footing than that of twenty-eight other similar claims, wherein Board of Revenue condoned even lapse of not claiming benefit of SRO 457 in GDs, in addition to non-filing of requisite certificates with GDs--Provisions of Section 33(4), being a substantive law, could not be applied retrospectively--Imported equipment has not been sold further by appellant to any third person either directly, as they were actually imported, or indirectly, as a raw material or as a component part in finished product; rather same have been used and installed by appellant in its own project of telecommunication services--Incidence of customs duty paid is presumed to have been passed on to buyer as a part of price of such goods unless contrary is proved by payer of duty, was not applicable in present case to imported equipment, which were admittedly installed and utilized by appellant in its own project of telecommunication services and were not sold to any third party, either directly or indirectly--The fora below have not attended to case in hand in its correct factual and legal perspective, and their decisions suffer from legal errors warranting interference and positive correction by this Court--Appeal allowed. [Pp. 97, 98, 100, 101 102] A, B, D, E, F G New Law-- ----It is trite that, a new law, which deals with procedure and does not affect rights or liabilities of parties, generally applies to all proceedings, pending as well as future, while a new law, unless expressly provided, which affects rights or liabilities of parties, being substantive in nature, is applied prospectively, and not retrospectively. [P. 99] C Judgment Yahya Afridi, J.--M/s. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (‘appellant’), through a civil petition,…

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