Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 632 2005 SLD 632 2005 PTD 1726
Sindh High Court
Constitution petition No.D-141 of 1996, heard on 26-01-2005
SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

HUBCO POWER COMPANY LTD

VS

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, (EXPORT) and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 35 & 36---Duty drawback on re-export of goods---Admissibility---Identification of goods---Necessity---Duty drawback could be claimed on goods other than those, which had been imported---Under S.35 Customs Act, 1969, goods capable of being identified, when imported upon payment of customs duties, then 7/8 of duties would be repaid as drawback, if exported within two years of their import and identified to be the same goods as had been imported---Under S.36 of Customs Act, 1969, repayment of duty as drawback in respect of goods put into use between-their import and export would be made in accordance with rules---Section 36 of Customs Act, 1969 would be applicable to goods used in Pakistan before its re-export, and duty drawback in such case would not be 7th/8th of import duty, but would depend upon statutory rules---Principles. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 35 & 36---Duty drawback on re-export of goods---Inability to identify goods due to non-signing of packing list by Master Shed Appraiser at the time of export---Validity---In absence of any specified rule, no weight could be attached to factum of non-signing of packing list. JUDGMENT SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.---The petitioner had imported some used equipment for carrying out construction work in Pakistan in March, 1994. They have claimed that such equipment was re-exported in October, 1994, but the respondents unlawfully declined to grant them the benefit of duty drawback under the Customs Act. From the show-cause notice, dated 26-12-1994 they have called in question the order-in-original of the respondent No. 1, dated 27-2-1995, which was up-held in appeal by the respondent No. 2 vide order, dated 5-11-1995. It appears from the orders impugned before us that the benefit of duty drawback was declined upon the following­ grounds:-- (i) The packing list produced at the time of export had not been signed by the Master Shed Appraiser at the time of import of equipment; (ii) That the weight of the consignment was misdeclared and whereas the net weight at the time of import had been declared to be 62,595, which was also declared in the bill of export, upon physical…
🔒
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