| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 823 2001 SLD 823 2001 PTCL 373 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1263 of 1986, decision dated: 20-12-1999
MR., JUSTICE SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE MR., JUSTICE ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, JUSTICE
Petitioners by: Mr. Muhammad Ali Saeed, Advocate,
Respondent by: Nemo
Constitutional Petition No. D-1263 of 1986, decision dated: 20-12-1999
MR., JUSTICE SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE MR., JUSTICE ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, JUSTICE
Petitioners by: Mr. Muhammad Ali Saeed, Advocate,
Respondent by: Nemo
MODerN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED
VS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 18
CUSTOMS ACT, 1969 (IV OF 1969)---Section 18(2)---The levy of regulatory duty in excess of 50% of the rate of duty mentioned in the First Schedule was invalid, the petitioners are therefore liable to pay regulatory duty at the rate of 10% of the import of goods.--The question as to the extent to which such duty could be levied on goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Customs Act has been authoritatively settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in Yousuf Rerolling Mills v. Collector of Customs PTCL 1999 CL. 517 7; PLD 1989 SC 232 and it was held that such duty cannot exceed the rate of 50% of the rate of duty mentioned in the Schedule. Admittedly the rate of customs duty under the Schedule being 20% ad valorem the regulatory duty imposed could not exceed the rate of 10%. Accordingly, such duty at the rate of 30% ad valorem could not be claimed. We must indeed lament the manner in which the responsible State functionaries sometimes act in delicate matters involving public revenues and rights of citizens or which cause the impression that public power was not exercised responsibly. At the same time, however, the answer to Mr. Saeeds contention is found in the of the Honourable Supreme Court in Yousuf Re-rolling case PTCL 1999 CL. 517 = PLD 1989 SC 232 where their 10rdships only declared that the levy of regulatory duty in access of 50% of the rate of duty mentioned in the First Schedule was invalid. Accordingly we would al10w this petition only to the extent that the petitioners are liable to pay regulatory duty at the rate of 10% of the import of the goods. Once it is recognized that the quantum of regulatory duty at the relevant time could not exceed 50% of the rate of duty specified in the First Schedule, the question that the executive has attempted to undo the manifest expression of legislative would not arise.--Indeed the question that the executive has attempted to undo the manifest expression of legislative will no longer arise once it is recognised that the quantum of regulatory duty at the relevant time could not exceed 50% of the rate of duty specified in the First Schedule. There can also be no cavil with the proposition that such regulatory duty…
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