Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 724 2004 SLD 724 2004 PTD 315
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.228 of 1994, heard on 1st September, 2003
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE
Mian Nazir Azhar for Petitioner. Khurram M. Hashmi for
Respondent.

MESSRS QUREL CASSETTES LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, ISLAMABAD

VS

ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 27

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 27(2) & 108---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Imported goods were damaged due to unavoidable accident after authority allowed same to be transported for warehousing---Authority refused petitioner's claim for abatement of duty in respect of damaged goods---Validity---Goods had been damaged after same had been entered for warehousing---Petitioner was entitled to relief in terms of S.27(2) of Customs Act, 1969--High Court allowed Constitutional petition with directions to the Authority to proceed in the matter in terms of S.108 read with S.27 of the Customs Act, 1969. Messrs Tata Textile Mills Ltd. through Director v. Assistant Collector (Recovery Officer), Customs, Central Excise and Customs, Multan and another PLD 2000 Lah. 286 rel. JUDGMENT The facts that emerge upon a reading of the writ petition and the parawise comments filed by the respondents in this case are that some goods were imported by the petitioner. Upon arrival at Karachi these goods were cleared vide Bills of Entry No. 1522, dated 20-9-1986 and 2794, dated 20-12-1986. These consignments were allowed to be transported against safe transportation bond and insurance policy coverage to Rawalpindi. Before the goods could reach the Warehouse at Islamabad, some damage occurred. According to the petitioner 772 bags were damaged. This fact was also ascertained by the Customs officials who supervised the in-bonding at Islamabad. The petitioner claimed abatement of duty in respect of the damaged goods but the same was disallowed and ultimately the revision filed by the petitioner before the Federal Government was also dismissed on 18-12-1993. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a case of misconstruing rather non-reading of the relevant provision of law by the respondent-authorities. According to the learned counsel the case is squarely covered by section 108 of the Customs Act, 1969. He also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Messrs Tata Textile Mills Ltd. through Director v. Assistant Collector (Recovery Officer), Customs Central Excise arid Customs, Multan and another (PLD 2000…
🔒
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