Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 2824 2001 SLD 2824 2001 PLD 343
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1821 of 1996, decided on 14th February, 2002
ATA-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Zahid F. Ibrahim for Petitioner. Raja M. Iqbal for
Respondent

UNION INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Law:

Section:

(a) Customs Art (IV of 1969)-------Ss. 33 & 223---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Refund of customs duty---Instructions of Central Board of Revenue---Effect---Where none of the ingredients as mentioned in S.33 of the Customs Act, 1969 was attracted, said provisions would not come into play---Central Board of Revenue, in the present case had given specific directions to the Authorities for refund of the amount, which the Authorities were bound to comply, therefore, there was no need for the petitioner to move any application---Subordinate functionaries of Customs had to follow the orders of the Central Board of Revenue. Per Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui, J. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)------Ss. 33 & 223---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Excess customs duty, refund of---Erroneous classification--­Administrative orders---Grievance of the petitioner was that the Central Board of Revenue realized that excess payment was made due to erroneous classification ruling given by it, which was subsequently rectified and therefore all such persons who were made to pay excess amount were to be refunded such excess amount---Authorities instead of complying with the directions,. dismissed the application for refund of the excess duty on the ground of limitation----Validity---All officers of customs and other persons employed in the execution of the Customs Act, 1969, were bound to observe and follow the orders, instructions and directions of the Central Board of Revenue under the provisions of 5.223 of the Customs Act, 1969--­Directions given by the Central Board of Revenue regarding refund of excess duty were purely administrative in nature which were required to be followed by the Authorities---Petitioner had applied for refund and had thereby requested for mere compliance of the Central Board of Revenue direction, therefore, the Authorities ought to have refunded the amount in compliance of the binding direction of Central Board of Revenue and were not justified in taking up 'cudgels with the petitioner on the basis of technicalities---Orders passed by the Authorities were not warranted in…
🔒
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