Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D-326 of 1984, decided on 12th April, 1984.

---Art.9--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.30, proviso--Notifications Nov. S.R.O.20(1)/78, and 21(1)/78 dated 1-1-1978--Date for determination of value and rate of import duty--Relevant date for purposes of determin ing rate of customs duty is date on which manifest filed and not bill of entry--Manifest filed after coming into force of notifications dated 1-1-1978, withdrawing certain concessions in customs duty on import of some items, consignment, held, liable to regulatory duty instead of free--Contention that proviso only covers cl. (b) of S.30 and not cl. (a) under which bill of entry filed, held, not tenable--Proviso covers both cls.(a) t (b).

Amerliwala Hardware Industries v. Collector of Customs and another P L D 1970 Kar. 196 and Dada Steels Mills v. Collector of Customs and another P L D 1984 Kar. 94 ref.

---Art.9--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.30, proviso--Notifications Nos. S.R.O.No.20(1)/78 and 21(1)/78 dated 1-1-1978--Petitioner filing manifest after coming into force notifications withdrawing certain concessions- Petitioners, held, had no vested right to get consignment released on basis of rate of customs duty prior to 1-1-1978 in view of provision of law contained in S.30 of Customs Act, 1969.

S.M.Hassan for Petitioner.

The Petitioners through this petition have impugned the orders dated 11-5-1978, 11-9-1978 and 23-6-1982, passed by respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively.

The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner imported 122 cartons of salted butter and 41 cartons of unsalted butter valuing Rs.49,672 against Import Licence No.906729. The above consignment arrived at the port of Karachi. The petitioners filed a Bill of Entry according to the averments in the petition much before 1-1-1978 under section 79 of the Customs Act. The Master of the vessel filed IGM on 1-1-1978. It seems that the Government of Pakistan under the revised financial budget in the evening of 1-1-1978 withdrew certain concessions in the customs duty on the import of some items through SROs bearing No.20(1)/78 and 21(1)/78 dated 1-1-1978 and imposed regulatory duty etc. and 100% instead of free. It seems that respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice dated 24-1-1978 to the petitioners calling upon them to make good the short recovery of Rs.49,672 in customs duty in respect of the above butter consignment which was replied to by the petitioners through letter dated 19-6-1978. However, the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 11-5-1978 ordered the payment of the above amount by the petitioners within one week. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal, which was dismissed by respondent No.2 by his order dated 11-9-1978. The petitioners then filed revision against the abovesaid orders which was also dismissed by respondent No.l by his order dated 23-6-1982. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above orders have filed the present petition.

2. In support of the petition Mr.S.M.Hassan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that since the Bill of Entry was filed much prior to 1-1-78 any change in the structure of the rate of customs duty on 1-1-1978 was not applicable to the instant case. It was further contended by him that the petitioners had vested right in getting their consignment released on the basis of the rate of customs duty pertaining prior to 1-1-1978.

3. It may be observed that three competent forums i.e. the Assistant Collector of Customs, Karachi. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) Karachi and the joint Secretary Government of Pakistan Central Board of Revenue have concluded as a matter of fact that the Master of the vessel had filed I.G.M. on 1-1-1978. In other words, the petitioners had filed Bill of Entry in respect of the consignment in question before the filing of the general manifest by the master of the vessel. The above situation is catered for by proviso 1 to section 30 of the Customs Act. It may be pertinent to quote hereinbelow the above section 30 of the Customs Act which reads as follows:-

Section. 30. "Date 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 the 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 of the purposes of this section shall be the date on which the manifest of the conveyance is delivered."

From the above-quoted section it is evident that under proviso 1 to the above section it has been 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 purposes of the above section shall be the date 'on which the manifest of the conveyance is delivered. It is, therefore, evident that in the instant case as the manifest was delivered by the master of the vessel on 1-1-1978, the relevant date for the purposes of determining the rate of customs duty is the date on which the manifest was filed. Admittedly, the petitioners had filed the bill of entry prior to the delivery of the manifest. This has been the consistent view of this Court in a number of cases. Reference may be made to the case of Amerliwala Hardware Industries v. Collector of Customs and another P L D 1970 Kar. 196 and the case of Dada Steel Mills v. Collector of Customs and another P L D 1984 Kar. 94.

However, It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above proviso only covers clause (b) of section 30 and not clause (a) under which bill of entry in question was filed by the petitioners prior to the arrival of the vessel. In our view, proviso I covers both the clauses namely (a) and (b) of section 30 of the Customs Act.

4. As regards Mr. S . M . Hassan's contentions that the petitioners had vested right to get the consignment released on the basis of the rate of customs duty prior to 1-1-1978, it will suffice to observe that the petitioners had no such vested right in view of the above-quoted provision of law contained in the above-quoted section 30 of the Customs Act.

For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed in limine.

M . A . K . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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