Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 3011 2024 SLD 3011 2024 PTD 736
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petitions Nos.D-4972 D-1573, D-5966 and D-5626 of 2023, decided on 31st January, 2024. dates of hearing: 5th, 19th and 20th December, 2023.
BEFORE MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR AND ZULFIQAR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Saad Shafiq Siddiqui, Imran Iqbal Khan, Muhammad Adeel Awan, Aneel Zia, Saima Syed, Asadullah Jan and Rana Sakhawat Ali for Petitioners (in all Petitions) Sardar Zafar Hussain, Muhammad Khalil Dogar, Fahim Raza Khuhro, Ghulam Mujtaba Sahito, Alqamah Bin M

SHAMIM AHMED AND ANOTHER

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 25-A,25-D,194-A,196

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 25-A, 25-D, 194-A & 196---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Interim relief, refusal of---Valuation Ruling, remedy against---Alternate and efficacious remedies---Scope---Petitioners / importers sought that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution should grant interim relief by directing authorities to secure or deposit differential amount of duties and taxes and pass order to release their consignments upon payment of duties and taxes on declared transactional values---Validity---Alternate remedy of Revision was provided against a Valuation Ruling in terms of S. 25-D of Customs Act, 1969 before Director General (Valuation)---Remedy was also available to petitioners / importers by way of appeal under S.194-A of Customs Act, 1969, before Customs Appellate Tribunal and finally before High Court by way of a Reference Application under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969---Invoking Constitutional jurisdiction directly against Valuation Ruling issued under S. 25-A of Customs Act, 1969 was barred by law---Even if High Court granted any interim relief, until such time the forums below decided the matter, it would amount to assuming jurisdiction over the lis, for which petitioners / importers had invoked alternate remedy and remedial process had been set in motion---Assuming Constitutional jurisdiction for petitioners / importers would amount to frustrating the statutory remedial process as this was discretionary jurisdiction and could not be exercised in every run of a mill case in the manner as was contended by petitioners / importers---Ad-interim relief is only granted by High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, when the Court thinks it appropriate that a case for further indulgence for a final relief is made out, whereas, the petitioner had no other remedy in law---If at all petitioners / importers were finally successful in their challenge to Valuation Rulings in question, they were within their right to seek refund of excess duties and taxes in accordance with law---High Court declined to exercise discretion under Art. 199 of the…
🔒
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