DISCLAIMER: All information has been given in good faith; however, the Readers must see actual text from Officials Websites of the Dept. and Libraries.
COURTS | YEAR | VERSUS | SECTION | Topics | PARAS/CASE LAWS | Citations/Reference | REPORT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lahore High Court | 1997 | M/s. SHADMAN COTTON MILLS LTD.
vs.
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN |
18, 19 Art. 25 | Exemption |
Notification through which the exemption was granted remained operative so long the same existed and in case the exemption was withdrawn, |
2001 PTD 411 | View Report |
Karachi High Court | 2000 | M/s CHINA YUNNAN CORPORATION
vs.
COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and others |
32(2)(3) | Show cause notice |
Notice could have been issued on or before 6-3-1995 but the same was issued on 10-6-1995. Where the show-cause notice could have been issued |
2001 PTD 661 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | M/s. Sugi (Pvt.) Ltd
Vs.
Collector of Customs etc.
|
Sec.13(3) | Appeal |
The impugned order shows that no reasons have been given about the suspension. Admittedly no proceedings for cancellation in terms of Section 13(3) |
W.P.No. 13486/2011 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | M/s. Sugi (Pvt.) Ltd
Vs.
Collector of Customs etc. |
Sec.13(3) | Licence |
The impugned order shows that no reasons have been given about the suspension. Admittedly no proceedings for cancellation in terms of Section 13(3) |
W.P.No. 13486/2011 | View Report |
Balochistan High Court | 2013 | Collector of Customs, Quetta
Vs.
Customs, Sales Tax & Central Excise, Appellate Tribunal Quetta & another |
Sec.194-C, 196 | Jurisdiction |
At the time of appeal in question Single Member of Appellate Tribunal was authorized to hear matters involving amounts up to Rs. 100,000 |
2013 PTD 59 | View Report |
Balochistan High Court | 2013 | Collector of Customs, FE&ST, Quetta
Vs.
Ramzan & anothers |
Sec.15, 16. 181, & 196. | Fine |
FINE IN LIEU OF CONFISCATION: Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 empowered the Adjudicating Officer to give the owner of the goods an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation of goods, |
2013 PTD 440 | View Report |
Peshawar High Court | 2013 | Additional Director, I&I
Vs.
Banaras Khan |
Sec.2(s), 156(1), 181, & 196. | Adjudication |
Neither such S.R.O. could curtail powers of Adjudicating Authority nor would he be bound by instructions/ directions/orders contained therein while exercising a quasi-judicial function. |
2013 PTD 1988 | View Report |
Peshawar High Court | 2013 | Additional Director, I&I
Vs.
Banaras Khan |
Sec.2(s), 156(1), 181, & 196. | Auction |
Neither such S.R.O. could curtail powers of Adjudicating Authority nor would he be bound by instructions/ directions/orders contained therein while exercising a quasi-judicial function. The |
2013 PTD 1988 | View Report |
Karachi High Court | 2000 | M/s CHINA YUNNAN CORPORATION
vs
. COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and others |
32(2)(3)--- | Re-assessment |
Provisions of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969, are analogous to the provisions of S.65 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Provisions of the statues empower the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment finalized earlier on receiving a definite information. Customs Authorities, under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969, has accepted |
2001 PTD 661 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2010 | The Collector of Customs
Vs
M/s. Faisal Enterprises, |
Sec.25(1), Sec.88(5) Sec.27 | WTO Agreements |
WTO Agreements:- |
Spl. Cus. R.A. No.69 of 2010 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2010 | The Collector of Customs
Vs
. M/s. Faisal Enterprises, |
Sec.25(1), Sec.88(5) Sec.27. Sec.32(3) | Valuation |
WTO Agreements:- |
Spl. Cus. R.A. No.69 of 2010 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2012 | Mrs. Surayya Begum
Vs.
DC Customs & others |
Sec.25A, Sec.32, Sec.194A | Mis-declaration |
1. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that customs authorities has [have] properly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969? |
Spl. Cus. R.A. No.90 of 2012 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2012 | Mrs. Surayya Begum
Vs.
DC Customs & others |
Sec.25A, Sec.32, Sec.194A, | Valuation |
1. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that customs authorities has [have] properly interpreted and applied the provisions of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969? |
Spl. Cus. R.A. No.90 of 2012 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2010 | The Collector of Customs
Vs.
WAPDA |
Sec.196, Sec.33 | Refund |
REFUND:- From the perusal of the above provision, it is clear that no refund of any customs duties or charges claimed to have been over paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction shall be allowed unless such claim is made within one year (previously it was six months) of the date of payment of such duty and charges. |
Spl. Cus. R.A. No.149 of 2010 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2010 | The Collector of Customs
Vs.
WAPDA |
Sec.196, Sec.33 | Reference |
REFUND:- From the perusal of the above provision, it is clear that no refund of any customs duties or charges claimed to have been over paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction shall be allowed unless such claim is made within one year (previously it was six months) of the date of payment of such duty and charges. |
Spl. Cus. R.A. No.149 of 2010 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Mr. Parvez Iqbal Kasi (Adv)
Vs.
Mr. S. Mohsin Imam (Adv) |
Sec.138 para 8(i) of the EPO 2009. | Re-Export Permission |
Re-Export Permission:- In the instant case it has come on record that the consignment was not imported in accordance with law, whereas the applicants have attempted to clear the banned goods by seeking the benefit of SRO 565(I)/2006, which was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case or duty and taxes were evaded by the applicants and lesser amount of duty and taxes were paid, which resulted in loss of revenue to the exchequer. |
Spl. C.R.A. Nos. 600, 604 & 605 of 2011 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Mr. Parvez Iqbal Kasi (Adv)
Vs.
Mr. S. Mohsin Imam (Adv) |
Sec.138 para 8(i) of the EPO 2009 | Frustrated Cargo |
Re-Export Permission:- In the instant case it has come on record that the consignment was not imported in accordance with law, whereas the applicants have attempted to clear the banned goods by seeking the benefit of SRO 565(I)/2006, which was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case or duty and taxes were evaded by the applicants and lesser amount of duty and taxes were paid, which resulted in loss of revenue to the exchequer. |
Spl. C.R.A. Nos. 600, 604 & 605 of 2011 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2014 | M/s. Wine Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
Vs.
Additional Collector, etc. |
Sec.196, Ss(3) of 179 of CA, 1969, Chapter-7 of Customs Rules, 2001 | Question of Law |
Question of Law. |
C.R.A. No.08/2014 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2014 | M/s. Wine Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
Vs.
Additional Collector, etc. |
Sec.196, Ss(3) of 179 of CA, 1969, Chapter-7 of Customs Rules, 2001 | Maintainability of reference |
Question of Law. |
C.R.A. No.08/2014 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2009 | M.Najeeb Jamali (Adv.)
Vs.
Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal (Adv.). |
Sec.25, Sec.81. | Technicality |
15. However before parting with the order we would like to dilate upon the issue raised by Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal that the present reference applications have not been filed on the prescribed format. In our view the requirement of filing prescribed form is a mere technicality which does not affect the substance of the application. We in this regard would like to refer the decision given by this Court in the case of Abdul Ghani & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 6 TAX 185 wherein the Honble Bench observed as under:- |
Spl. C.R.A. No.03 to 10 of 2009 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2009 | M.Najeeb Jamali (Adv.)
Vs.
Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal (Adv.). |
Sec.25, Sec.81. | Valuation |
15. However before parting with the order we would like to dilate upon the issue raised by Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal that the present reference applications have not been filed on the prescribed format. In our view the requirement of filing prescribed form is a mere technicality which does not affect the substance of the application. We in this regard would like to refer the decision given by this Court in the case of Abdul Ghani & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 6 TAX 185 wherein the Honble Bench observed as under:- |
Spl. C.R.A. No.03 to 10 of 2009 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2009 | Mr. Zain A. Jatoi (Adv.)
Vs.
Mr. M. Junaid Ghaffar (Adv.) |
Sec.181, Sec.16, 32 & 32A, Sec.195 | Banned Items |
We also would like to clarify that our this decision should not be considered and read to be the one whereby we in any manner have given the permission to either import or release of the banned items as we have decided the above reference application only on the legal aspect without touching the merits of the case. |
Spl. Cus. Ref. Application No.101 of 2009 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2009 | M/s. Wine Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.
Vs.
Additional Collector, etc. |
Sec.27A | Benefit of Sec.27A |
On examination of the record we do not find that any question of law has been decided by the learned Member (Technical). From the reading of the questions 1 to 4 we have found out that the tribunal has decided the appeal on pure and simple appreciation of the fact that as admittedly no request for denaturing or mutilation was filed by the applicant as provided under the provisions of section 27A of the Act before filing of the GD, |
Spl. Cus. Ref. Application No.58 of 2009. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2008 | Raja M. Iqbal
Vs.
Mr. Zia-ul-Hasan (Adv.) |
Sec.194-C, Sec.81 | Provisional Assessment |
Provisional Assessment:- The record of the case do lead to believe that in the first place there is no legal compliance for the provisional determination of duty, taxes and other charges on the goods in terms of Section 81(1) of the Act as there is no reasoned order of custom officer as required by the said provision. |
Spl. Cus. Ref. Application Nos.89 of 2008. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2008 | Raja M. Iqbal
Vs.
Mr. Zia-ul-Hasan (Adv.) |
Sec.194-C, Sec.25D, Sec.81(3), Ss.5(b) of Sec.32 | Valuation |
Valuation:- 6. This brings us to the next question whether the basis which was adopted by the Customs to determine the price of the imported goods was contrary to law. As seen above, learned counsel has placed reliance on Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs |
Spl.Custom Reference Application No.154 of 2008. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2010 | Haji Ramzan,
Versus
The Member Judicial another |
Sec.156, 187 | Smuggling of Vehicle |
Learned counsel for the applicant has readout the Order-in-Appeal and the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Banch-I, Karachi, passed in the instant case and also readout the judgment of this Court passed in Special Custom Reference Application No.58 of 2010, which has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2013 in Civil Petition No.381 of 2013, |
Spl. Custom Reference Application No. 271 of 2010 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2010 | Mr. Zia-ul-Hassan, Advocate for the applicant. |
Sec.2(s),Sec.156 (1)(14), Sec.168 (2). | Smuggling |
Smuggling:- From the perusal of Section 2(S) (ii), it is clear that if any goods other than as mentioned in clause (i), notified by the Federal Government in the official gazette, (which exceeds rupees 150,000/- in value), |
Spl. Customs R.A. No.233 of 2010. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2013 | M/s Salman Tin Merchant
Versus
The Collector of Customs |
Sec. 31(1), 32, 80, 81, 196 | Provisional Assessment. |
However, in view of the provisions of sections 32 and 81 of the Customs Act, the Customs Department was under a legal obligation to finalize the assessment under section 81 and to issue a notice under section 81 if at the time of finalization of the assessment it was discovered that the goods imported by the petitioners did not conform to the description of the imported goods. |
Spl. C.R.A. No. 117, 118, 119, 120, &121 of 2010 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2004 | The Collector of Custom
Versus
M/s. Pak Suzuki Motor Company |
Sec.19 | Concession |
Concessionary:- Let us examine the first plea of the appellant that their Kit consists of six sets. We observe that this explanation given after the issuance of show cause notice, it not substantiated by any other evidence as firstly, the importer has not declared in his bill of entry that each kit consists of six sets. Secondly, the importer never declared this while submitting his application for obtaining the concession under the deletion programme. |
Spl. Cus.R.A. No. 25 of 2004 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Mr. Justice Faisal Arab.
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi |
Sec.32A, C.G.O: 10/1972 | Mis-declaration |
Mis-declaration:- The applicant has not been able to make out a case requiring any interference by this Court in its reference jurisdiction, whereas the decision of the learned Tribunal is based on concurrent finding of fact which cannot be altered by this Court unless found to be perverse. |
Spl. Cus.R.A. No.598 of 2011 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Mr. Pervez Iqbal Kasi, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ilyas, Collector of Customs. |
Sec. 32 | Mis-declaration |
The applicants contention regarding established practice is untenable in view of the fact that under the PaCCS the importer self-clears the goods after payment of duty/taxes on the basis of his own declaration and except in very few cases consignments are not physically examined and it is through post clearance scrutiny that correctness of the declarations and the amount of duty/taxes made by the importers is determined. Such scrutiny is carried out within five (05) years of such transactions. |
Spl. C.R.As. No.302, 303, 304 and 305 of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Mr. Pervez Iqbal Kasi, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ilyas, Collector of Custom |
Sec. 83 | Self goods Clearance |
The applicants contention regarding established practice is untenable in view of the fact that under the PaCCS the importer self-clears the goods after payment of duty/taxes on the basis of his own declaration and except in very few cases consignments are not physically examined and it is through post clearance scrutiny that correctness of the declarations and the amount of duty/taxes made by the importers is determined. Such scrutiny is carried out within five (05) years of such transactions. |
Spl. C.R.As. No.302, 303, 304 and 305 of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Mr. Pervez Iqbal Kasi, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Ilyas, Collector of Custom |
Sec. 26A | Post Clearance Audit |
The applicants contention regarding established practice is untenable in view of the fact that under the PaCCS the importer self-clears the goods after payment of duty/taxes on the basis of his own declaration and except in very few cases consignments are not physically examined and it is through post clearance scrutiny that correctness of the declarations and the amount of duty/taxes made by the importers is determined. Such scrutiny is carried out within five (05) years of such transactions. |
Spl. C.R.As. No.302, 303, 304 and 305 of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2009 | Mr. M. Junaid Ghaffar, Advocate for the Applicants.
M. Mohsin Imam, Advocate for the Responden
t. |
Spl. C.R.A. Nos. 59 & 60/2009 | Criminal Proceedings |
Suffice to observe that the finding of a criminal Court is |
Spl. C.R.A. Nos. 59 & 60/2009 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2012 | Shoukat Ali, V/s. Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) & others. | Art.199 Sec.179 Sec.181 | Quasi Judicial |
Quasi-Judicial:- ¦¦¦.. The intention of the Legislature is thus clear that the disposal of the goods seized under the Act is left entirely in the jurisdiction of the custom authorities. |
C.P. No.D-2352 of 2012.html | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2012 | Shoukat Ali, V/s. Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) & others | Art.199 Sec.179 Sec.181 | Adjudicating Proceedings |
Quasi-Judicial:- ¦¦¦.. The intention of the Legislature is thus clear that the disposal of the goods seized under the Act is left entirely in the jurisdiction of the custom authorities. |
C.P. No.D-2352 of | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2012 | Shoukat Ali, V/s. Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) & others | Art.199 Sec.179 Sec.181 | Judicial Proceedings |
Quasi-Judicial:- ¦¦¦.. The intention of the Legislature is thus clear that the disposal of the goods seized under the Act is left entirely in the jurisdiction of the custom authorities. |
C.P. No.D-2352 of | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2013 | M/s. Bilal International
Versus
F.O.P. & others |
Art.4, 10-A, 18 & 25. IPO, 2013. | Memo of petition |
The Court file and have noticed that the petitioner has not raised any objection as to the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent No.4. Further, the objection of jurisdiction has only been argued at the time of hearing of the petition and is not averred in the memo of petition |
Const. Petition No.D-542 of 2009. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2013 | M/s. Bilal International
Versus
F.O.P. & others |
Art.4, 10-A, 18 & 25. IPO, 2013. | jurisdiction |
The Court file and have noticed that the petitioner has not raised any objection as to the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent No.4. Further, the objection of jurisdiction has only been argued at the time of hearing of the petition and is not averred in the memo of petition |
C.P. No. D-4268 of 2013. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2013 | M/s. Bilal International
Versus
F.O.P. & others |
Art.4, 10-A, 18 & 25. IPO, 2013. | Adjudicating Proceedings |
The Court file and have noticed that the petitioner has not raised any objection as to the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent No.4. Further, the objection of jurisdiction has only been argued at the time of hearing of the petition and is not averred in the memo of petition |
C.P. No. D-4268 of 2013. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2013 | Messrs MEMON MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED through General Manager---Petitioner Vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman and 2 others---Respondents |
Sec.10 of STA, 1990, Sec.19 of NAB , Ord. | Notice |
Notices:-It is not out of context to mention here that in the case titled Ghulam Hussain Baloch and others, referred to above, the guidelines contained therein, reiterated in subsequent cases of |
M/s. Bilal International Versus F.O.P. & others | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2013 | Messrs MEMON MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED through General Manager---Petitioner Vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman and 2 others---Respondents |
Sec.10 of STA, 1990, Sec.19 of NAB , Ord. | N.A.B. |
Notices:-It is not out of context to mention here that in the case titled Ghulam Hussain Baloch and others, referred to above, the guidelines contained therein, reiterated in subsequent cases of |
C.P. Nos. D-692, D-617, D-998, D-1070,¦ of 2013. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | M/s. Sajid Chemical
Versus
The D.G. Valuation and others |
Sec.25A Sec.25D | Constitutional jurisdiction |
Whereas, efficacious statutory remedy has already been provided for redressal of grievance to an aggrieved party. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Khalid Mehmood vs. Collector of Customs reported as 1999 SCMR 1881, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: |
Const. Petition Nos.D-1100 & D-643 | View Report | |
Sindh High Court | M/s. Sajid Chemical
Versus
The D.G. Valuation and others
|
Sec.25ASec.25D | High Court |
Whereas, efficacious statutory remedy has already been provided for redressal of grievance to an aggrieved party. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Khalid Mehmood vs. Collector of Customs reported as 1999 SCMR 1881, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: |
Const. Petition Nos.D-1100 & D-643 | View Report | |
Sindh High Court | M/s. Sajid Chemical
Versus
The D.G. Valuation and others |
Sec.25ASec.25D | Valuation |
Whereas, efficacious statutory remedy has already been provided for redressal of grievance to an aggrieved party. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Khalid Mehmood vs. Collector of Customs reported as 1999 SCMR 1881, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: |
Const. Petition Nos.D-1100 & D-643 | View Report | |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Sardar Amin Farooqi and others
Versus.
Director I&I-FBR |
Sec.128, 2(b), 4(s). Sec.154 of CPC | Afghan Transit Trade |
A.T.T.:-While giving the detail of the F.I.Rs, it has been contended by the learned counsel that 2 FIRs pertain to the containers/goods dispatched from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim through MCC (PMBQ) while later 4 FIRs, from S.No. 3 to 6 above, pertain to the containers dispatched |
Const. Petition Nos. D-2925, 2926, ¦.. of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Sardar Amin Farooqi and others
Versus.
Director I&I-FBR |
Sec.128, 2(b), 4(s). Sec.154 of CPC | Smuggling |
A.T.T.:-While giving the detail of the F.I.Rs, it has been contended by the learned counsel that 2 FIRs pertain to the containers/goods dispatched from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim through MCC (PMBQ) while later 4 FIRs, from S.No. 3 to 6 above, pertain to the containers dispatched |
Const. Petition Nos. D-2925, 2926, ¦.. of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Sardar Amin Farooqi and others
Versus.
Director I&I-FBR |
Sec.128, 2(b), 4(s). Sec.154 of CPC | Petition Maintainability |
A.T.T.:-While giving the detail of the F.I.Rs, it has been contended by the learned counsel that 2 FIRs pertain to the containers/goods dispatched from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim through MCC (PMBQ) while later 4 FIRs, from S.No. 3 to 6 above, pertain to the containers dispatched |
Const. Petition Nos. D-2925, 2926, ¦.. of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2014 | M/s. Baig Enterprises & Engineering.
Versus.
The F.O.P. & Others |
IPO, 2013. Sec.3 of I&E (Control) Act, 1950. Sec.219 of C.A. | Custom Station |
Function of FBR:-The plain reading of the above provisions would show that the aim of giving the rule making power to CBR is to carry out the purpose of the above statutes through subordinate legislation. The Federal Government in exercise of powers under |
C.P. No. D-4353 of 2014. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2014 | M/s. Baig Enterprises & Engineering.
Versus.
The F.O.P. & Others |
IPO, 2013. Sec.3 of I&E (Control) Act, 1950. Sec.219 of C.A. | Pendency of petition |
Function of FBR:-The plain reading of the above provisions would show that the aim of giving the rule making power to CBR is to carry out the purpose of the above statutes through subordinate legislation. The Federal Government in exercise of powers under |
C.P. No. D-4353 of 2014. | View Report |
DISCLAIMER: All information has been given in good faith; however, the Readers must see actual text from Officials Websites of the Dept. and Libraries.