2002 PLP 2698 (YLR)
Messrs SUPER‑TECH INTERNATIONAL through Muhammad Khan Tahir‑‑‑Appellant Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2698 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SUPER‑TECH INTERNATIONAL through Muhammad Khan Tahir‑‑‑Appellant Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2698 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2698 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2698 (YLR) (Messrs SUPER‑TECH INTERNATIONAL through Muhammad Khan Tahir‑‑‑Appellant Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sajid Mehamood Sheikh for Appellant.
- 2. On first appeal learned Tribunal found for the appellant. It was noted that there was no mention of the officer competent to grant extension in rule 4 of the said S.R.O. Secondly, that even if the extension was, to be granted by the Collector, it was for the departmental to seek his approval as the had approached them explaining due reasons for his claim for extension. Thirdly, according to the learned Tribunal the Customs Law the date of import date of filing, of bill of entry and not the date of manifest which was taken into consideration by the Collector while exercising his powers under section 195 of the Acts
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.195‑‑‑S.R.O. 844(1)/98; dated 23‑7‑1998‑‑‑Concession provided under S.R.O.844(1)/98‑‑‑Re‑export of Stainless Steal Sheets‑‑Importer was granted extension in time as provided in the Notification for re‑export of the sheets imported by the importer‑‑‑Extension granted was set aside by the Collector of Customs in exercise of powers under S.195 of the Customs Act, 1969‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal allowed the importer to re-export the sheets Within one month‑‑‑Plea raised by the importer was that the Tribunal could not reduce the period given in the notification‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Plea raised by the importer was accepted by High Court and period of one month was extended to six months‑‑‑Appeal was allowed by the High Court accordingly. (b) Administration of justice‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Mistake on the part of Court should prejudice no one. A. Karim Malik Respondents/Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Administration of justice‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Mistake on the part of Court should prejudice no one. Sajid Mehamood Sheikh for Appellant. A. Karim Malik Respondents/Revenue. The appellant imported stainless steel sheets under a concessional S.R.O. 844(1)/98, dated 23‑7‑1998. According to that S.R.O. the imported material was to be used for the manufacture of goods to be exported out of Pakistan within a period of six months. The appellants, however, made a request for extension in time as provided for in the said S.R.O. It was allowed by the Assistant Collector Customs (Bonds) Dry-port, Lahore on 27‑6‑2000 after obtaining the approval of Additional Collector of Customs, Lahore. Subsequently, however, the Collector of Customs, Lahore re‑opened the case in terms of section 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that he was not competent to grant extension.
2. On first appeal learned Tribunal found for the appellant. It was noted that there was no mention of the officer competent to grant extension in rule 4 of the said S.R.O. Secondly, that even if the extension was, to be granted by the Collector, it was for the departmental to seek his approval as the had approached them explaining due reasons for his claim for extension. Thirdly, according to the learned Tribunal the Customs Law the date of import date of filing, of bill of entry and not the date of manifest which was taken into consideration by the Collector while exercising his powers under section 195 of the Acts
3. While concluding, the learned Tribunal, however, allowed the appellant to make export of the goods manufactures from the material imported under the said S.R.O. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of their order. That portion of direction grieved the appellant.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are persuaded to allow the contention made at the bar by the appellant that the Tribunal after having found for them ought to have allowed same time as provided for in the S. R. O. for the export of the goods. On consideration of various facts and on the contention that mistake on the part of the Court should prejudice no one we will hold that the extended period of six months shall be taken from 28‑8‑2001, the date on which the order of the Tribunal was dispatched to the appellant.
5. Appeal allowed in the above terms. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑338/L Appeal allowed.