Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 1428 2009 SLD 1428 2009 PTD 467 (2009) 99 TAX 317 2009 PTCL 330
Lahore High Court
Writ Petitions Nos.15767 to 15776 of 2008, heard 24-11-2008
KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J
Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for
Respondent

Messrs S.T. ENTERPRISES through Proprietor

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, (Revenue Division/FBR), Islamabad and 4 others

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 25,32

Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32---Object, requirements, interpretation and scope of application of S.32, Customs Act, 1969---Phrases "reason to believe" and "material particular"-Connotation. Section 32 Customs Act, 1969 applied where someone makes or causes to make or signs or causes to deliver to an officer of customs any declaration, notice, certificate and other documents whatsoever. This obviously means that it only speaks of a document which has been signed by him or which he has caused to sign or makes any statement to any question which he has reason to believe that such document and statement is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section. Section 32 is a penal clause. It completely speaks of a declaration, notice, certificate or other document or a statement given by the importer on the basis of which a consignment is released. In the show-cause notice when the Deputy Collector speaks of the appraisement it only states that some importers with the active connivance of their clearing agents are evading the government dues by getting their items assessed at a very low rate. After the assessment has become out of charge invoking the provision of section 32 on the basis of another ruling apparently does not find any support from the language of S.32. Section 32 has been inserted to correct an error, modify an assessment and to recover the refund issued inadvertently. This obviously means review or correction of the error in a finalized matter. Once a consignment is out of charge after due consideration of relevant facts it becomes a past and closed transaction to the extent of its value etc. The same, therefore, should not be invoked only on the basis of the mere estimate gosips, personal whims or feelings that the value could have been enhanced or it could fetch more taxes etc. The opening of an appraisement for the purposes of re-valuation of an earlier estimate or adopted figure would require `reason to believe' and not `reasons to suspect'. For example, if one subsequently, finds that the description of the imported goods was different, H.S. Code applied was wrong as a result of misrepresenting or the number…
🔒
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