Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 108 1990 SLD 108 1990 PLJ 303
Sindh High Court
Const, petition No. 263 of 1986, accepted on 5.3.1990
SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHIUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Mr. J.H. Rahimtoola, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.M.Umar Qureshi, Advocate for
Respondents.

K.S. SULEMANJI ESMAILJI and Sons LTDPelitioner

VS

PAKISTAN, THROUGH MEMBER, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, and 2 others--Respondents

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32,223

Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969)-- —Ss. 32 . 223-Show cause notice-Issuance of—Principles for-Central Board of Revenue, by General Order, had issued direction to Customs Authority that wherever show cause notice under Section 32 is issued, full particulars of value relied by Department should not only be disclosed but its copy should be provided to importer to rebut it—General Order is binding on all officers of Custom Department under Section 223 of Act—Held: As petitioner was not furnished with relevant invoice at any stage of hearing, impugned orders are without lawful authority and of no legal effect-Petition accepted and case remanded.  [P.306]A PLD 1988 Karachi 99 re/. JUDGMENT Saleem Akhtar, J.—The petitioner imported 1075 Cartons of Pineapple in Syrup at the rate of CF U.S. $ 3.48 per carton of 24 tins of 20 Oz each. The goods arrived on 12.5.1980 on board M.V. President Roosevelt Voy. 76. The Bill of entry was submitted on the same day declaring the value of the goods as per invoice. It is alleged that the Customs’ Authorities did not take any action and the petitioner wrote letter dated 14.6.1980 to the Collector of Customs complaining against the delay in clearance of the goods which had gone under demurrage w.e.f. 28.5.1980. The goods however were not allowed to be cleared and a show-cause notice was issued on or about 24.7.1980 by respondent No. 3 alleging that the documents delivered and declaration/statement made by the petitioner were untrue in material particulars and there was contravention of Section 32 of Customs Act 1969. It was alleged that the goods were grossly under invoiced to evade substantial Government revenue. The petitioner replied and stated that the show-cause notice was vague and did not give particulars of documents, declaration and statements. The basis of fixing the normal value was not disclosed nor it was shown whether it was based on transaction or information. It was further stated that the notice was bad in law for having been issued more than 2 months after the dale of Bill of Entry. A personal hearing was afforded before respondent No. 3 and it has been alleged that without taking into consideration the documents…
🔒
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