Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1047 2007 SLD 1047 2007 PTD 1480 2008 PTCL 136
Sindh High Court
Suit No. Nil of 2006, decision dated: 20-11-2004
MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, JUSTICE
Muhammad Sharif for Plaintiff. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants.

MESSRS SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32 & 217---Claim for refund of export duty---Issuance of show-cause notice under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 upon making such claim by exporter---Suit challenging such notice---Maintainability---Authority in accordance with law had levied duty on exported goods---Impugned action of authority was in accordance with law and could not be termed as mala fide and was not open to challenge before civil court---Suit was dismissed being non-maintainable. Malik Muhammad Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 2167; Messrs Amin Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 others 2000 SCMR 201; Messrs. Binaco Traders v Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 1491; Abbasia Cooperative Bank v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus PLD 1997 SC page 3 and Al-Abram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellant Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29 ref. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 217(2)---Protection of action taken under Customs Act, 1969---Scope---Official act done in good faith would be protected---Section 217(2) of Customs Act, 1969 did require that for claiming protection thereunder, the act must be done in good faith. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 9---Special law providing remedy for redress of grievance---Effect---Plaintiff could not verbally be allowed to circumvent such remedy by invoking jurisdiction of civil court. ORDER MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.---In both the captioned suits following common office objections were raised:--- (1) The suit appears to be barred under section 217 of Customs Act, 1969. (2) Suit is barred by section 56 of the specific Relief Act. Since both the suits contained identical common office objections, therefore, were heard together for the purpose of adjudication of issues raised. The common facts given rise to file the present suit are that the, plaintiff in both suits was engaged in the business of manufacture and export cotton yarn and cotton thread, for which different machines are required. Cotton yarn is produced either on "Open end Rotors" or on ring Frame Machines and after production of yarn, "thread" is produced from yarn twisting machines, in the past plaintiff had exported to West Germany…
🔒
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