2006 PLP 1490 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPEALS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI Versus Messrs U.D.L. INDUSTRIES LTD. and 4 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1490 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPEALS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI Versus Messrs U.D.L. INDUSTRIES LTD. and 4 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1490 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1490 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C. J. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1490 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPEALS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI Versus Messrs U.D.L. INDUSTRIES LTD. and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
Learned counsel contended that the High Court had granted exemption of duty to the respondents in view of notification, dated 10-9-1991, which was made applicable with effect from 12-9-1991, although the respondents were not entitled for the same because it had no retrospective effect as per its terms as the duty levied had already been cleared by them in pursuance of earlier notification, dated 16-5-1991. Having gone through both the notifications, we are of the opinion that the notification dated 10-9-1991 was not made operative retrospectively, therefore, the respondents were not entitled for exemption particularly" when the duty had already been paid by them in pursuance of earlier notification dated 16-5-1991 being a past and closed transaction.
2. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 31-1-2002 is set aside. No order as to costs. S.A.K./C-4/SC Appeal accepted.