Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2409 of 1979, decided on 6th October 1979.

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969.)-

-- S. 30-Determination of value and. rate of import duty-Date for Imported goods arriving at sea port before target date-Bills of entry and applications for- transhipment of goods from sea port to dry port also presented before such date-Import of goods, held, completed on arrival at sea port and liability to pay duty to be considered from date when bills of entry presented.

(b) Customs Act (IV 1969)- '

S. 30-Word "transhipment"-Means to transfer for further transportation from one ship or conveyance to another.-[Words and phrases],

Masood Zakarya for Petitioner.

Zia Mahmood Mirza for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 2nd October 1979.

The petitioner imported goods comprising rotors and starters of different

types. The goods were shipped in five vessels, all of which excepting s. s. OCKENFELS' arrived before the 5th June, 1976, at Karachi Sea Port. The goods were also manifested at Karachi within time and the manifest of all the vessels were also delivered to the Custom Authorities at Karachi.

2. Thereafter, the goods were transhipped to be cleared at Dry Port, Lahore. The petitioner presented all the Bills of Entry on 26th and 27th May, 1976. The goods, however, arrived at Lahore on different dates in the months of June and July, 1976.

3. The rate of import duty for all the goods on .the date when they arrived at Karachi Port was 62 % ad valorem. However, this duty was raised by 10% by the Finance Act, 1976 with effect from 5th June, 1976. Consequently, the petitioner - was asked to pay at the enhanced rate for all these goods. The petitioner challenged the demand by way of an appeal and a revision before the respondents but without any success. It has, therefore, filed the present writ petition.

4. It is an admitted fact that the goods in all the cases except the vessel s. s. OCKENFELS' arrived at Karachi Port before the 5th June, 1976. It is also clear from the chart produced by the respondents that the applications for transhipment of the goods from Karachi to Lahore were made before that date.

5. Section 30 of the Pakistan Customs Act provides for the fixation of date for determination of value and rate of import duty. It runs as under:

"30. Dale for determination of value and rate of import duty.-The value of, and the rate of duty applicable to, any imported goods shall be the value and the rate of duty in force-

(a) in the case of goods cleared, for home consumption under section 79, on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under that section; and

(b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under section 104, on the date on which a bill of entry for clearance of such goods is presented under that-section:

Provided that, where a bill of entry has been filed in advance of the arrival of the conveyance by which the goods have been imported, the relevant date for the purpose of this section shall be the date on which the manifest of the conveyance is delivered."

Section 79 lays down three main purposes of import i. e.

(i) Home consumption;

(ii) Warehousing;

(iii) Any other approved purpose.

Clauses (a) and (b) of section 30 deal with the first two purposes. The date for the purpose of value and rate of duty in both the cases is the date of which the bill of entry has boon presented. The Proviso deals with a different situation which does not avail in the present case. There is other provision dealing with import duty on goods imported for such purposes.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government relied on sections 121-123 read with section 79 (2) to state that as the goods were not cleared at Kharachi but had to be transhipped to Lahore, it is the date of the arrival of the goods at Lahore that shall determine the rate of duty.

7. Sections 121-123 fall under Chapter X11 pertaining to 'transhipment'. This term has not been defined in the Act. According to dictionary it means to transfer for further transportation from one ship or conveyance to another'. Ordinarily these provisions have no relevance to the date for determination of value or rate of duty.

8. The argument of the learned counsel, however, was that as the goods transhipped have to be entered in the same manner as goods on the first transportation under section 123, the transhipped goods shall be deemed to have been imported for first time on the new place.

9. 1 am afraid, the argument is too far-fetched and irrelevant. The manner of entry of the , goods at the second place may be meant only t verify the goods as far their quantity is concerned but their importation already complete. The only exception made in section 30 is for warehouse goods. The liability is thus to be considered from the date when the bill of entry was presented under section 30.

In view of the above the demand of the respondents of enhanced rate of duty with regard to the goods already received and bill of entry presented before 5th June, 1976, is without lawful authority. The result is that this petition succeeds with regard to the goods other than arriving in vessel s. s: OCKENFELS':

As there is only a partial success, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.