Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 496 2005 SLD 496 2005 PTD 186
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petitions. Nos. D-446 & D-520 of 1994, heard on 27-08-2004. dates of hearing: 24th, 26th and 27-08-2004.
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE
Khalid Anwar and Munib Akhtar for Petitioner (in C. P. No. D-520 of 1994). Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D.446 of 1994). Raja Muhammad Iqbal and Nadeem Azhar, Dy. A.G. for
Respondents.

MESSRS TARIQ BROTHERS THROUGH, PARTNER MIAN EJAZ AHMED

VS

CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND 3 OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 25

(a) Notification--- Notification imposing liabilities could never be given retrospective, effect. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ---- When a statute provides for exception to general rules and allows impairment of rights of parties through executive action, then all conditions for its effectiveness must be established. (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25-B---Inspection and Valuation of Imported Goods Rules, 1990, R. 9---Import Tariff Price fixed under S.25-B of Customs Act, 1969--­Prevalent Price Report issued by COTECNA---Effectiveness---Import Tariff Price would become operative only after its duly publication in notification from the date specified therein---Such tariff would not apply to goods regarding which Bills of Entry for ex-bonding were filed before actual publication of notification, but same would be liable to duty at the rate assessed in terms of Prevalent Price Report of COTECNA---Where Bill of Entry was filed after publication of such notification, then, duty would be payable at the rate specified therein. Province of East Pakistan v. Hassan Askari PLD 1971 SC 82 and Muhammad Ishaq v. Chief Administrator Auqaf PLD 1977 SC 639 ref. (d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 25-B---Inspection and Valuation of Imported Goods Rules, 1990, R. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Valuation of goods at Import Tariff Price by mentioning wrong notification---Liability to pay duty was exactly at the same rate--­Held: interference with such order in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction would be unjust and contrary to public interest. (e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 25-B---Inspection and Valuation of Imported Goods Rules, 1990, R. 9---Valuation of goods on basis of Prevalent Price Report prepared by COTECNA-- Validity---Assessment would be made on, basis of such report, unless evidence of higher import price was available with Customs Authorities---Such report could not be discarded merely on basis of opinion or on best of Customs officers---Word "evidence" as used in R. 9 of Inspection and Valuation of Imported Goods Rules, 1990, pre supposes existence of some tangible material indicating a higher value---Where…
🔒
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