Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 700 2006 SLD 700 2006 PTCL 486 2006 PTD 1207
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petition No. D-1360 and Misc. No. 5096 of 2005, decision dated: 1st February, 2006
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE ALI SAIN DINO METLO, JUSTICE
Shoukat H. Zubedi for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for
Respondent. No. 5.

SHAIKH RASHID AHMED and others

VS

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SPECIAL RECOVERY CELL, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), KARACHI and 4 others

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 156

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32 & 156 (1), item 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-- Constitutional petition---Untrue statement/false declaration---Determi­nation---Fraudulent claim of rebate---Recovery---Petitioners were not the exporters but had some transactions with exporters and received certain amounts through crossed cheques drawn by exporters---Department found that the exporters made fraudulent claim with regard to duty draw back rebate thus notices were issued for refund of rebate---Petitioners being husband and wife inter se were also issued such notices as husband had received the cheques and wife was owner of the house---Validity---Only a person making false statement or a false declaration before officer of customs could be held guilty of offences under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 and could be subjected to penalty under Item 14 of S.156 (1) of Customs Act, 1969---Amount erroneously paid could be refunded under S.32 (2) of Customs Act, 1969---When Customs Authorities were misled into making payments to exporters, such amount could only be recovered from them and from no other person---Nothing whatsoever was there even to infer that any allegation of any nature was ever made against wife by the authorities---Coercive measures for recovery were being applied against the wife merely because of the fact that house where her husband was living belonged to her---Such high-handedness on the part of officers vested with extensive powers for recovery of public revenues had to be strongly discouraged---High Court set aside the notice issued against petitioners for recovery of duty draw back---Petition was allowed in circumstances. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S.32 (1)---False declaration---Onus to prove---Burden to prove liability for an offence under S.32 (1) of Customs Act, 1969, is squarely upon department and no penalty can be imposed on mere inferences. ORDER Since all the parties were present and appeared to be prepared to proceed with the matter, we decided to admit the petition and take up its final hearing. 2. The petitioners have called in question the demand notice, dated 1-10-2005 in respect of an allegedly fraudulent…
🔒
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