1993 PLP 2025 (SCMR)
GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Secretary‑‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 2025 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Secretary‑‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑, Civil' Appeal No. 1208 of 1990, Civil Appeals Nos. 1210 and 1215 of 1990 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 2025 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑, Civil' Appeal No. 1208 of 1990, Civil Appeals Nos. 1210 and 1215 of 1990, Civil Appeals Nos. 1204 and 1206 of 1990 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 2025 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 2025 (SCMR) (GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Secretary‑‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the orders/judgments of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawralpur, dated 8‑5‑1990 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.445‑85/BWP, 456‑84/BVWP, 457‑84/BWP, 471‑85/BWP respectively). GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Secretary‑‑‑Appellant versus PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents CHAKWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD., CHAKWAL‑‑‑Appellant versus THE FEDERAL GOVEFRNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents (On appeal from the order/judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 22‑55‑1990 passed in W.P. No. 579 of 1989). ZEESHAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and another‑‑‑Appellants versus THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, 1 Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 1 2 others‑‑‑Respondents (On appeal from thee order/judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15‑5‑1990 passed in Writ Petitions No.6633 of 1988 and 6632 of 1988 respectively). ‑‑‑‑S. 18‑‑‑Identical questions of law involved in appeals and set of appeals already decided by Supreme (Court‑‑‑By judgment rendered in decided appeals remand had taken place; following that decision, appeals were partly accepted, in so far as denial of relief from customs duty etc. had taken place on the ground that machinery or part thereof, was locally manufactured‑‑‑Appeals would stand remanded for fresh determination by the departmental officers after determining the full facts as pointed out in the appeals already decided‑‑ Claim with regard to exemption from surcharge, or iqra surcharge or reduction from any portion thereof was, however, rejected. Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others PLD 1991 SC 329 rel. Respondent: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑‑‑These appeals have come up for hearing ex parte after a set of appeals involving the same question of law had been disposed of by judgment in Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others (PLD 1991 SC 329). These appeals relate to the Automatic Cone Winders or Ring Spinning Frames, in respect of which a remand had taken place vide Category‑B cases prepared in that decided case. Following the decision, these appeals are accepted only partly, in so far as denial of relief from customs duty etc. has taken place on the ground that the machinery or a part of it is locally manufactured. These appeals shall stand remanded for fresh determination by the departmental officers, after ascertaining the full facts of each case as pointed out in the case of Sohail Jute Mills (PLD 1991 SC 329). The claim with regard to exemption from Surcharge, or Iqra Surcharge or reduction from any portion of it is rejected. A.A./G‑403/S Case remanded.