1990 PLP 1248 (CLC)
Messrs S.M. CHAWALA & .Co.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1248 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, CJ arid |
| Parties | Messrs S.M. CHAWALA & .Co.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1248 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1248 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, CJ arid.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1248 (CLC) (Messrs S.M. CHAWALA & .Co.‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Afsar Abdi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 32‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Import of canned foods and fruits‑‑‑Petitioner's grievance was that Authority had not processed bills of entries filed by petitioner though imported goods were perishable‑‑‑Authority's contention was that samples drawn from the lot contained added sugar, therefore, show‑cause notices were issued to petitioner‑‑‑High Court directed petitioner to contest show‑cause notices before Authorities, who would draw samples jointly in order to curtail the controversy and to decide the same after receiving fresh report and after hearing petitioner. Qadir H. Sayeed, DyA.‑G. for Defendants (on Court Notice).
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑In the above three petitions, the petitioners have imported canned foods and fruits for diabetics which items axe on free list. The petitioner have filed the above 3 petitions for the reason that the respondents had not processed the bills of entries, which were filed by the petitioner though the imported goods were perishable. We had issued notice to the learned Deputy Attorey‑General to ascertain as to why assessment orders were not passed in respect of the consignments, which are the subject‑matter of the three petitions. In response to the above notice, Mr. Qadir H. Sayeed, learned Deputy Attorney‑General, has submitted that according to the respondent department, samples were drawn of Pineapples and Strawberries and according to the laboratory test, they contained added sugar and, therefore, show‑cause notices have been issued to the petitioner. Mr. Afsar Abdi points out that Pineapples and Strawberries may have natural sugar of their own and what was prohibited was that there should not be any added sugar. He has further submitted that alleged samples were not drawn in the presence of the petitioner. In our view, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to contest the show cause notices before the respondents, who will draw the samples jointly in order to curtail the controversy and would decide the same after receiving the fresh report and after hearing the petitioner. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. AA./S‑566/K Order accordingly.