Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 486 2005 SLD 486 2005 PTCL 500 2005 PTD 23
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petition No.D-817 of 2004, decision dated: 7-09-2004. dates of hearing: 17th and 18th, August 2004.
SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Ismat Mehdi for Petitioner. Syed Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Respondent No. 3 in person.

SHAHZAD AHMED CORPORATION THROUGH SHAHZAD AHMED

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 168

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 168(2) & 171---Period of two months as specified in S. 168(2) of Customs Act, 1969---Extension of---Scope---Customs Officer had no jurisdiction to extend such period by delaying service of notice under S.171 of Act, 1969. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 4, 32, 168, 171 & 186---S.R.O. No.388(I)/82, dated 22-4-1982--­Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--­Goods already out of charge detained by Appraising Officer (Intelligence, and Investigation) without complying with mandatory provisions of Ss. 168 & 171 of Customs Act, 1969---Validity---Neither imposition of fine/penalty had been alleged against petitioner nor same had been alleged to be under consideration nor case was covered by S.186(2) of the Customs Act, 1969---Such act of Appraising Officer would amount to seizure of goods under S.168(1) of Customs Act, 1969---Appraisin- Officer had not recorded grounds for seizure and reasons as to on what basis he had formed opinion that goods already cleared by appraisement staff (being appropriate officers) were liable to confiscation---Appraising Officer not being an appropriate officer for purposes of Ss.32 & 168 of Customs Act, 1969) by his such act had stepped, over jurisdiction vested in appropriate officer- --Petitioner acquired a vested right for clearance of goods after same having been assessed to duty and taxes under S.80 of Customs Act, 1969 and passing of order by appropriate officer for its clearance---Any act depriving petitioner of such vested right must have been backed with sufficient reasons and grounds, failing which same would be liable to be struck off---Information, if any, 'available with Director or Appraising Officer of Customs Intelligence and Investigation,, could be provided to officials of Appraisement Department---Information as to appraisement officials being in collusion with petitioner could be provided to senior officials in hierarchy of appraisement, who could exercise all powers and discharge all duties conferred or imposed upon their subordinate officers---No officer of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation had power to detain or…
🔒
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