Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 742 2004 SLD 742 2004 PTD 997
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petitions Nos. D-766 and D-767 of 2003, decision dated: 8-01-2004. dates of hearing: 18th and 19-12-2003
SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Appellants. Shakeel Ahmed for
Respondents.

MESSRS AVIA INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS

VS

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), APPRAISEMENT COLLECTORATE, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACH AND OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 45

(a) Administration of justice-----Every person is responsible for his own deeds/misdeeds, acts and omissions and nobody incurs any liability on account of any wrong committed by any other person. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S.45---Contents of import manifest and amendment thereof---Scope--­Allegation of mis-declaration on the part of importer by Collector of Customs---Nothing was available on record to the effect that the said importers were also a party to the alleged mis-declaration in other imports---Refusal of amendment to the manifest on the, ground of alleged mis-declaration was not tenable. (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S.138---Frustrated cargo---Where any goods were brought into a custom station by reason of inadvertence, mis-declaration, or untraceability of the consignee, the Collector of Customs may, on application by any person-in-charge of the conveyance which brought such goods and subject to rules, allow export of such goods without payment of any- duty---If none of the conditions for treating the consignment as frustrated cargo was satisfied any action in that behalf by the Department was uncalled for. (d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S.45(2)---Contents of import manifest and amendment thereof--­Scope---Obvious error---Concept---Line of demarcation drawn in major and minor penalties by the Customs Department was imaginary and such "figment of imagination" was not warranted in law---Principles. A perusal of section 45(2), Customs Act, 1969 shows that it empowers the appropriate officer to allow the correction of any obvious error in the import manifest or to rectify any omission which in the opinion of such officer results from accident or inadvertence. The present case is not a case of any omission but is a case of correction sought in the IGM. The law has provided for correction of any obvious error in the import manifest. An obvious error is an error which is plain and open and is plainly visible and evident. Now, if the IGM sought to be amended is read with other import documents, Clarification Certificate of the supplier and NOC of the party named as consignee in the IGM cannot be termed anything else but an obvious error with…
🔒
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