Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 1050 2003 SLD 1050 2003 SCMR 1370
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1185-L of 2000, decision dated: 2-07-2002
RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE
Sayed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent.

MESSRS HABIB RAFIQUE

VS

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, MULTAN

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 19

Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 19, 26, 156(1)(12), 196 & 196-A---S.R.O. 279(1)/94, dated 2-4-1994--- Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, whether petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of hearing and was condemned unheard by High Court, whether petitioner could be proceeded against for violation of provisions of S.R.O. 279(1)/94 after submission of certificate of installation from Assistant Collector, Central Excise; and whether penalty imposed on petitioner was disproportionate to offence allegedly committed by him. ORDER RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner-company seeks leave to appeal against Lahore High Court judgment in Custom Appeal No.48 of 1998 setting aside judgment of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal), dated 9-7-1998 whereby petitioner's appeal against the order, dated 11-11-1997 of the Collector Customs, Multan was allowed. 2. In terms of S.R.O. 279(1)/94, dated 2-4-1994, Messrs Rousch (Pakistan) Power Ltd. imported machinery and equipment weighing 5557.16 metric tons for their Power Plant at Abdul Hakeem, Sidhnai Barrage. Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal vide bill of entry, dated 21-4-1997. In terms of the S.R.O, the import was exempt from payment of customs duty and in case of permanent importation, importer was required to submit a certificate of installation of machinery and equipment imported for the purpose during one year from the date of import from Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the project is located. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner actually consumed the entire machinery and equipment at the sanctioned project but according to the respondent, on 11-6-1997 Custom Authorities intercepted avehicle of the petitioner containing 36 metric tons of imported steel bars at Khanewal Road, Multan. It is assertion of the respondent that petitioner-company was shifting the material to another site namely Power Plant at Lal Pir, which was unauthorized as according to relevant S.R.O. machinery and equipment was required to be erected and installed at the sanctioned…
🔒
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