| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1262 2026 SLD 1262 |
Islamabad High Court
Customs reference no.70/2024
Presented By: (Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan) Judge (Babar Sattar) Judge
31.03.2026 Malik Nasir Abbas, advocate for the applicant
Customs reference no.70/2024
Presented By: (Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan) Judge (Babar Sattar) Judge
31.03.2026 Malik Nasir Abbas, advocate for the applicant
Collector Customs, MCC, Customs House, Islamabad
VERSUS
Green Appliances (Private) Limited, and another
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 24A
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section:
CASE SUMMARY Core Facts The Tribunal had set aside the departmental order on the ground of limitation. Show-cause notice: 11.01.2022 Order-in-original: 30.11.2022 Tribunal held it was barred by 202 days. Customs department relied on extensions allegedly granted by Collector/FBR to save limitation. Issues Whether the order-in-original was time-barred under the Customs law framework? Whether administrative extensions by Collector/FBR without proper reasoning could extend limitation? Held High Court upheld Tribunal’s view and held: Extensions relied upon by Customs were mechanical and unreasoned. Such extensions violate Section 24A of the General Clauses Act (reasoned order requirement). Neither Collector nor FBR can validly extend limitation in a non-speaking or automatic manner. Relied on precedent: M/s Al-Murtaza Traders v. Customs Appellate Tribunal (Customs Reference No. 44/2024) TAGLINE “Mechanical extension of limitation without reasons is void; Customs order rightly set aside as time-barred.” ORDER; Babar Sattar, J: This is a reference against the judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 28.03.2024. The Tribunal has decided the matter on grounds of limitation, as the show-cause notice was issued on 11.01.2022 and the order-in-original was passed on 30.11.2022. The Tribunal noted that the order-in-original was barred by limitation by 202 days. Thus, no penal consequences could flow from such order. Learned counsel for the Customs department has handed us a noting sheet pursuant to which the Collector purportedly granted extension for a period of 22 days on the basis that there was no rejoinder submitted by the respondent and that the department had failed to make arguments as well. When asked to establish from the order sheets of the adjudicatory proceedings that it was the respondent that had sought time to submit a rejoinder and the proceedings were adjourned and or delayed due to inaction on part of the respondent, learned…