Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 235 1985 SLD 235 1985 CLC 2796
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-424 of 1983, decision dated: 9-05-1984
ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J. AND ABDUL RAZAAK A. THAHIM, J
Mamnoon A. Kazi for Petitioner. Akram 2uberifor
Respondent

Messrs WASEEM TRADERS

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 18

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 18--Pakistan Customs Tariff, Hdg. 73.03--Custom Authorities passing order declaring goods as second hand serviceable auto parts--Such authorities ignoring relevant considerations while deciding that goods were not scrap--Order set aside and case remanded with direction for determination whether goods which were actually scrap fell under Pakistan Customs Tariff Hdg. 73.03--Writ issued. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J.--The petitioners obtained an import licence for importing iron steel scrap. They declared the value of consignment at Rs.42,380. The goods were declared as "Iron Steel Scrap". The bill of entry was filed and the Assistant Collector of Customs on examination found that the goods were second-hand serviceable auto parts. He held that the import licence did not cover import of such goods and, therefore, he held that there was a misdeclaration in the bill of entry in regard to the nature of goods. No action by way of confiscation was taken by the Assistant Collector of Customs. He himself asked the petitioners to opt for summary adjudication or show-cause notice. The petitioners being anxious to obtain the goods opted for summary adjudication. We are informed by Mr. Mamnoon Kazi that a penalty of Rs.80,000 was imposed besides duties which were levied on the goods as spare auto parts. An appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs who upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs. He stated that the goods were altogether different from the goods declared and, therefore, the Assistant Collector was competent to come to a conclusion about the normal value which the goods would have fetched. The revision application was, therefore, filed before the Central Board of Revenue. Such revision application was also dismissed. 2. On a reading of the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, the Collector of Customs and the Central Board of Revenue we find that none out of these three authorities have applied their mind…
🔒
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