Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 910 2011 SLD 910 2011 PTD 1007
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.2000 of 2010, decision dated: 1st February,2011, hearing DATE : 27-01-2011
RIAZ AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE
Mian Muhammad Athar and Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Petitioners.Salman Farooq and Shafi Muhammad Chandio, Deputy Attorney General for
Respondents.

MESSRS HOME LIFE THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 10 OTHERS

VS

NATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD

Law: Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)

Section: 11, 52

Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)--Ss. 11 & 52---National, Tariff Commission Act (VI of 1990), S.11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitution petition---Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty---Petitioners who imported tiles, had challenged proceedings whereby Anti-Dumping Duty was imposed by authorities/ Commission on the imported goods---Earlier constitutional petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and petitioners had approached the Supreme Court---Supreme Court setting aside order passed by High Court, remanded case to the authorities/Commission to proceed afresh on the claim by the petitioners---Petitioners had filed present constitutional petition in which it was claimed that as Supreme Court had declared order of the authorities/Commission as void and coram non judice, amount paid by the petitioner as Anti-Dumping Duty was liable to be refunded back to the petitioners---Validity---Held, Supreme Court had not finally decided the case, but had remanded the case on legal ground to the authorities/Commission and Commission had been given authority to look into the matter regarding imposition of levy of Anti-Dumping Duty---Basic object of Anti-Dumping Duty was that the importers could not sell the articles on the price less than the price prevailing in the country wherefrom said articles had been imported---Such was the exclusive prerogative of the National Tariff Commission to allow or refuse the refund---Authorities/Commission had to record the evidence and pass an order on the basis of evidence---High Court, under constitutional jurisdiction, could not enter into the factual controversy or investigate the claim of the petitioners--Basic" claim of the petitioners was still pending before the Commission; and the Supreme Court had not passed any order regarding the merits of the case---Since the case was remanded to the Commission, petitioners could raise their objections before the Commission---High Court could not enter into the exercise of calculating the Anti-Dumping Duty as said matter was within the power of National Tariff Commission---Petitioners, would be at liberty to raise the claim regarding refund of duty paid by then:…
🔒
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