Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Constitutional Petition No. D-653 of 1983, decided on 19th December, 1983.
---Art . 9--Customs Act (IV of 1969) , S.171--Notification No. S . R .O.700 (1)/80, dated 26th June, 1980--Exemption from payment of duty- Petitioner importing glycerine recovery plant for installation at Uthal in Province of Baluchistan an area where such machinery could be imported without payment of import duty--Petitioner installing machinery at Karachi--Held, notice under S.171 proper--Contention that it was difficult for machinery to be utilized in Uthal, because gas and water had not been made available by Government, held further, had no force as petitioner knew at time of import that gas can water were not available.
---Art.9--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.171--Show-cause notice--Show -cause notice issued to party--Such party had a chance of placing its case before relevant statutory authorities who had to decide case according to law--High Court, held, rarely interfered in matters at such premature stage.
Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioner.
Aziz Munshi, Deputy A.-G. for Respondents.
.--Comments have been filed by respondent No.2. The petitioners had imported a glycerine recovery plant for installation at Uthal Industrial Area within the province of Baluchistan. We are informed, and copy of Notification No.S.R.O. 700 (1)/80, dated 26-6-1980, has also been placed before us to show that machinery of some kinds can be imported without payment of duty for the purpose of being installed in some areas within Pakistan. We make it clear that such and similar machinery, if imported for installation in other parts of Pakistan, will be subject to duty. Possibly, an incentive has been provided by the Government for development of under-developed areas.
The procedure, on import, is that the importer furnishes an indemnity bond, binding himself to pay to the Collector of Customs all customs duty that is leviable on the machinery, in case he fails to instal the machinery at such place. In the instant case, the petitioner has executed such indemnity bond, a photostat copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure "D".
It is submitted case that the machinery was to be installed at Uthal, and it is also submitted case that the machinery, in fact, never went to Uthal, but is in Karachi, although a period of twenty-two months has expired since the import of machinery. In fact, in the notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, dated 6-8-1983, issued to the petitioner by the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excises), Karachi, it is stated that the petitioners had contended before the statutory functionaries that the plants were at the stage of pre-fabrication, and not installed, but, on inspection by the relevant authorities, it was found that the machinery had been installed on permanent foundation at Karachi. To that extent, Mr.Sohail Muzaffar states that the machinery had been fabricated and joined which, as the learned Advocate argued, raised curiosity in our mind. He stated that it was more convenient for fabricated machinery to be taken to Uthal. We have not been able to understand this argument. On the other hand, on facts, it is clearly stated in the notice under section) 171 of the Customs Act that the machinery had been installed on permanent foundation. In that context, we may also state that Mr.Sohail Muzaffar made a statement before us that it was difficult for the machinery to be utilised at Uthal, because gas and water had not been made available by the Government of Baluchistan. Even such an argument has not impressed us, because the petitioners knew, at the time of import, that gas and water were not available, and, if that was so, they have only to thank themselves for importing the machinery.
On the admitted position that the machinery has not been taken to Uthal, what to speak of being installed there, the show-cause notice, that has been issued, appears to be proper. Even otherwise, this Court has stately interfered in matters at such premature stage, because, after a show-cause notice is issued, the party has a chance of placing its case before the relevant statutory authorities, who, as the law requires, will have to decide the case in accordance with law.
This petition also appears to be premature.
We see no substance in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.
M . A . K . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer