Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1387 2006 SLD 1387 2006 PTD 769
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 2004, decision dated: 9-01-2006, hearing DATE : 20-12-2005
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ
A. Karim Malik Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court No. 1

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AFU, AIRPORT, LAHORE

VS

Messrs TRIPPLEM (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director and 4 others

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32(3)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 32(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Notice of demand---Limitation---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to give authoritative determination with regard to questions of limitation and unreasonable delay. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 32(3)---Notification S.R.O. 561(I)/88, dated 30-6-1988---Regulatory duty, payment of---Notice of demand under S.32(3) of Customs Act, 1969---Limitation---About two months after clearance of goods, on 10-7-1989 authorities issued notice of demand for recovery of regulatory duty---After receiving reply of importer, authorities remained silent for about three years, when on 31-8-1992 a notice of hearing was issued to the importer---During the hearing, authorities decided the matter against importer but High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by the authorities on the ground that the order-in-original had been passed after an unreasonable delay---Plea raised by the authorities was that the statutory notice had been issued within the prescribed period of time, while second notice was only a notice for hearing of the case---Validity---Statutory notice was issued within less than two months of the clearing of the consignment and thus was within time---Subsequent notice dated 31-8-1992, was a notice of date of hearing requiring the importer to appear before the authorities for showing cause as to why short recovery as regulatory duty be not recovered---Issuance of notice of date of hearing was not a fresh show-cause notice---Second notice had to be treated as a notice in continuation of the proceedings before the authorities which had commenced within time, under the earlier show cause notice and was merely a notice of date of hearing of the case---Proceedings initiated through show cause notice dated 10-7-1989, were well within time and were not hit by the period of limitation prescribed under S.32(3) of Customs Act, 1969, and were never dropped---Order of High Court that the order-in-original passed by authorities was not within a reasonable time from the date of issuance of notice dated 10-7-1989, the same were neither…
🔒
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