1985 PLP 1753 (SCMR)
ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES Ltd. and others Appellant Versus PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1753 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rahman |
| Parties | ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES Ltd. and others Appellant Versus PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1753 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1753 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rahman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1753 (SCMR) (ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES Ltd. and others Appellant Versus PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mansoor Ahmad Khan arid Shabbir Ghaury, Advocates‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Attorney‑General and Ch. Fazl‑i‑Husain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 2.
- Ex parte for Respondents .Nos. 1 and 3.
Judgment & Decree
The definition of liquid glucose has been cited above. A sample of another consignment of similar liquid glucose imported in drums was sent to the Chemical Examiner for testing and on 19‑3‑1976 he reported as under." "The sample is found to be commercial glucose composed of dextrose, maltose and dextrine. It is not synonymous to D‑glucose chemically pure. It is in the form of thick viscouse liquid." Another consignment was also reported after being tested by the same Chemical Examiner on 20‑3‑1976. The report runs as under:‑ "The same is found to be commercial glucose composed of dextrose, maltose and dextrine. It is not synonymous to D‑glucose chemically pure. It is in the form of thick viscouse liquid." Obviously the duty on chemically pure glucose is less because of its use for medicinal purposes." This factual affidavit is valuable on at least on two points. Firstly, it is useful in understanding, explaining and answering the first ground taken up by the learned counsel for the appellants‑‑the department being estopped by its conduct, practice and past treatment from a volte face. Secondly, it is useful in tracing the very genesis of this controversy. The commodity imported remaining the same the P.C. T. entry remaining as it was, and the use of the imported stuff also suffering no change, why an altogether different view was taken. It is true that a departmental practice consistently followed, giving rise to vested rights over the years will not be lightly interfered so as to disturb or destroy the rights. A classic example of it is found in the case decided by this Court and cited by the learned counsel for the appellants viz. Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan. But in this case it is not so much the language of the statute which is presenting a problem as the report of the technical expert. As long as the report of Mr. S.U. Khan held the field the commodity was classified and treated as "Glucose‑‑chemically pure" when Mr. Patel's report took over the field the same commodity acquired a different chemical composition and was treated differently. So it is the technical expert's report which has brought about the change. All said and done no rule of estoppel controls an expert in bona fide analysing a chemical with a view to determine its constituents, or composition. The argument on estoppel is misconceived in the context. The report presented by Mr. S.U. Khan had the merit of relating the commodity to the P.C.T. classification heading by classifying it as glucose chemically pure. The report of Mr. Patel follows no such pattern. The terms used in his report are "commercial glucose" and "D‑glucose". These are not the words used in the P. C . T . classifica tion. The P.C.T. classification was in the relevant years as follows:‑ "Sugars and Sugar Confectionary. 17.02. Other sugars, sugar syrups; artificial honey (whether or not mixed with natural honey); Caramel A. Chemically pure glucose...25% ad val. B. Other ... ... ... 62 % ad val. It is also necessary to keep in view the following governing Notes to the P.C.T. Chapter 17 heading containing the above entry. It is as follows:‑‑ SUGARS AND SUGAR CONFECTIONARY Notes (1) This Chapter does not cover: (a) Sugar confectionary containing cocoa (heading No. 18.06) (b) Chemically pure sugars (other than sucrose, glucose and lactose) and other products of heading No. 29.43; or (c) Medicaments and other products of Chapter 30. (2) Chemically pure sucrose, whatever its origin, is to be classified in heading No. 17.01." Brussels Nomenclature Explanatory Notes contain the following corresponding entry:‑ "17.02. OTHER SUGARS, SUGAR SYRUPS, ARTIFICIAL HONEY (WHETHER OR NOT MIXED WITH NATURAL HONEY); CARAMEL. This heading covers the sugars proper (other than those included in heading 17.01), sugar syrups and also artificial honey and caramel. (A) OTHER SUGARS The principal sugars falling within the scope of the heading (provided they do not contain added flavouring or colouring matter see heading 17.05) are: (1) Glucose occurs naturally in fruits and honey. Together with an equal part of fructose it constitutes invert sugar. The present heading includes chemically pure glucose (or dextrose) and commercial glucose. Dextrose is a white crystalline powder. It is used in the food and pharmaceutical industries. Commercial glucose is obtained by hydrolysing starch with acids and/or enzymes. It always contains, in addition to dextrose, a variable proportion of di‑, tri‑ and other ply‑saccharides (maltose, maltotoriose, etc). It has a reducing sugar content, expressed ,as dextrose on the dry substance, of not less than 20%. It is usually in the form of a colourless, more or less viscouse liquid (glucose syrup), or of lumps or cakes (glucose aggregates) or of an amorphous powder. It is used mainly in the food industry, in brewing in tobacco fermentation and in pharmacy." It proceeds to deal with (2) Maltodextrins, (3) Fructose or Laevulose, (4) Lactose; (5) Maltose; (6) Invert sugar, (7) Sucrose sugars, all under category A. Thereafter follows the residuary (b) other with sugar syrups. Looking back at this arrangement in the reverse it is clear that group A nomenclature corresponds to Group A of P.C.T. (barring lactose which has been distinguished under separate heading 17.02) and Group B of the nomenclature to residuary group B of the P.C.T. It is again to be noted that Chapter 17 P.C.T. deals with confectionary item, the governing notes exclude altogether the pharmaceutical product, and what we find in 17.02 as chemically pure glucose is a confectionary product and not a pharmaceutical product. The entire basis of reasoning of the department is, therefore, untenable. Apart from the above, the expression chemically pure glucose has a fixed meaning. Encyclopaedia Brittanica 1950 Vol. 10 defines it at page 444 as follows:‑ "It is an aldose (aldehyde‑alcohol) of the hexose class, having the formula C6 H12 O6, and is also known as grape sugar or dextrose. The latter name refers to the fact that its solutions rotate the plane of polarized light to the right. (See CARBOHYDRATES.) When pure it is a white, crystalline powder, but it is more often seen as a yellowish, highly concentrated syrup of a sickly sweet taste; it is also obtainable as warty masses of its hydrate, C6 H12 O6 H2 O. Glucose is readily prepared from starch or from cane sugar by the action of dilute acids, and is easily fermented by yeast to give alcohol." The condensed chemical Dictionary (Arthur Elizabeth Rose, 7th Edition) defines Glucose as "(liquid) (starch, syrup, corn, syrup) thick syrup liquid, a mixture of dextrose, maltrose and dextrins with about 20% water." From the ordinary meaning of the word glucose, its description and placement in the P.C.T. and the report of the two experts which forms the very basis of the differential treatment by the department we are of the view that the commodity imported by the appellants and the subject‑matter of these appeals qualifies under P.C.T. heading 17.02‑A for duty. We accept all the four appeals with costs allowing their constitutional petitions and declaring the liability of the appellants to pay duty accordingly. M. B. A. Appeal accepted.