Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D-424 of 1983, decided on 9th May, 1984.

_--Art. 199--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 18--Pakistan Customs Tariff, Hdg. 73.03--Custom Authorities passing order declaring goods as second hand serviceable autoparts--Such authorities ignoring relevant considerations while deciding that goods were not scrap--Order set aside and case remanded with direction for determination whether goods which were actually scrap fell under Pakistan Customs Tariff Hdg. 73.03--Writ issued.

Mamnoon A. Kazi for Petitioner.

Akram 2uberifor Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th May, 1984.

--The petitioners obtained an import licence for importing iron steel scrap. They declared the value of consignment at Rs.42,380. The goods were declared as "Iron Steel Scrap". The bill of entry was filed and the Assistant Collector of Customs on examination found that the goods were second-hand serviceable autoparts. He held that the import licence did not cover import of such goods and, therefore, he held that there was a misdeclaration in the bill of entry in regard to the nature of goods. No action by way of confiscation was taken by the Assistant Collector of Customs. He himself asked the petitioners to opt for summary adjudication or show-cause notice. The petitioners being anxious to obtain the goods opted for summary adjudication. We are informed by Mr. Mamnoon Kazi that a penalty of ',s.80,000 was imposed besides duties which were levied on the goods as spare autoparts. An appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs who upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs. He stated that the goods were altogether different from the goods declared and, therefore, the Assistant Collector was competent to come to a conclusion about the normal value which the goods would have fetched. The revision application was, therefore, filed before the Central Board of Revenue. Such revision application was also dismissed. 2. On a reading of the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, the Collector of Customs and the Central Board of Revenue we find that none out of these three authorities have applied their mind to effect that these goods were second hand and not new. On the other hand, the word "scrap" would even mean such parts of an automobile as become absolutely unserviceable in that vehicle. To quote an instance an automobile may dash against another resulting in the breaking of the chassis or even the machine may be broken in pieces, but still some other parts of the same automobile may be usable. The question that then arises is whether such parts which may still be usable cannot be called scrap. What is more that in the present case admittedly the goods were not new. 3. On a reading of the impugned orders we find that this aspect of the case has not at all been considered and the case has been decided on the sole criterion that because these goods could still be serviceable, therefore, this was not scrap. This argument has not convinced us. Several instances could be stated say one of collapse of a building. The steel used in erection of building. Such steel by refinement could be used again but could it be said after the collapse of the building that the steel bars are not scrap. In our view it has to be termed as scrap.

4. In these circumstances we set aside the orders of the Central Board of Revenue, the Collector of Customs and the Assistant Collector of Customs and direct the Assistant Collector Customs to re-hear the matter for determination of the point whether the goods which were actually scrap fall under P.C.T. Heading 70.03. In that respect it shall be open to the Customs Authorities to seek opinion of experts for arriving at their conclusions.

This petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

M.A.K. Petition allowed.