1994 PLP 937 (CLC)
Messrs GULSHAN SPINNING MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 937 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | La hore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs GULSHAN SPINNING MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 937 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 937 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the La hore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 937 (CLC) (Messrs GULSHAN SPINNING MILLS LTD. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Umar Atta Bandial for Petitioners.
- Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents.
- 3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that it was imperative for the respondents to have first determined that the substitutes of the imported goods were locally manufactured, by making recovery of the dues, without such determination they could not straightway recover the customs duty/sales tax/surcharge and lqra Surcharge from the petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 18 & 19
Imposition of customs duty
Importers were pressed by Authority to pay customs duty, sales tax, surcharge and Iqra surcharge on machinery imported by them on ground that substitutes in imported goods were locally manufactured
Authority did not determine that substitutes of machinery so imported were locally manufactured
Imperative for Authority to have first determined that substitutes of machinery were locally manufactured and without such determination Authority could not straightaway recover such duties and taxes from importers
Case was remanded for fresh decision after making full determination in respect of machinery and to determine whether importers were entitled to exemption.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 31st January, 1993. By this order I 'propose to dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 9171/90, 1597/92 1757/92, 3511/92, 3661/92 and 4043/92 as common questions of fact and law are involved therein.
2. The petitioners, in all these cases, imported certain machinery and they claim that the same was not locally manufactured as such are entitled to claim exemption from payment of Customs Duty, Sales Tax/Surcharge and lqra Surcharge as envisaged by SROs Nos. 530(1)/90 and 490(1)/85 but the respondents are pressing them to pay the charges on the ground that the substitutes of the imported goods were locally manufactured.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that it was imperative for the respondents to have first determined that the substitutes of the imported goods were locally manufactured, by making recovery of the dues, without such determination they could not straightway recover the customs duty/sales tax/surcharge and lqra Surcharge from the petitioners. One Ataullah Khan, Collector Customs, Lahore had appeared before this Court in connection with Writ Petition No.1107/90 and made statement that he had no objection in acceptance of writ petitions and declaring the impugned orders of no legal consequence and undertook to hold fresh inquiry in each case in accordance with law to determine as to whether the machinery/goods imported by the' petitioners were locally manufactured or not. Consequently all the writ petitions were accepted and the cases were remanded to the Collector for fresh decision after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in those cases.
4. Learned counsel for parties state that the Collector concerned did provide opportunity of hearing to the parties and the cases are still pending decision. Since these petitions arise out of identical facts these petitions are also accepted, the impugned orders are declared to be of no legal effect and the same are remanded to the Collector concerned for fresh decision after making full determination as to whether the machinery/goods/spare parts were locally manufactured or not and as to whether the petitioners are entitled exemption as per provisions of the relevant S.R.Os.
5. The Bank guarantees already furnished by the petitioners shall not be encashed till the final decision of these matters.
6. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./G-179/L Petition accepted.