1989 PLP 4479 (MLD)
Messrs TAJ TEXTILE MILLS LTD.‑ — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4479 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Messrs TAJ TEXTILE MILLS LTD.‑ — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4479 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4479 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4479 (MLD) (Messrs TAJ TEXTILE MILLS LTD.‑ — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing 4th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.18 & 19‑‑Surcharge and Iqra Surcharge‑‑Levy of‑‑Surcharge and Iqra Surcharge being additional duties as they were leviable in addition to normal customs duty, Authority would be entitled to claim same‑‑Importer thus, could not challenge levy of such surcharges. Lahore Textile & General Mills Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1988 Lah.461 and Arshad Textile Mills Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1988 Lah.533 ref. Qureshi Muhammad Hafeez, Standing Counsel for Federal Government.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akram Khawaja for Petitioner. Qureshi Muhammad Hafeez, Standing Counsel for Federal Government. Date of hearing 4th April, 1989. This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions WP No.5122 of 1988 and W.P. No. 5124 of 1988 filed by Taj Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited, petitioner, and two writ petitions W.P. No.5636 of 1988 and W.P. No.5910 of 1988 filed by A.A. Textile Mills Limited, petitioner, challenging the levy of surcharge and Iqra surcharge on goods imported by them and a writ petition W.P. No.5123 of 1988 filed by Taj Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited, petitioner, challenging the levy of surcharge, Iqra surcharge and 20n'o customs duty on goods imported by it.
2. The above five cases were admitted on different dates and in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court in these cases, the goods were permitted to be released on furnishing of Bank guarantees. Since in four of these cases six months have passed by since the interim orders were passed, the Customs have taken steps to call in the Bank guarantee; and in the fifth case six months have yet to pass by, but the petitioner apprehends that no sooner the period is completed the Customs will take steps to call in the Bank guarantee. In these circumstances: all the petitioners, desire that their writ petitions be disposed of in terms of the judgments of this Court passed in the writ petition of Lahore Textile and General Mills Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1988 Lah.461 and Arshad Textile Mills Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1988 Lah.533 without prejudice to their rights of moving the Supreme Court of Pakistan to claim the same relief pressed by them in their writ petitions.
3. These writ petitions challenge the levy of surcharge and Iqra surcharge and 20% customs duty levied by the respondents on the goods imported by the petitioners. The matter regarding surcharge and Iqra surcharge has already been decided by this Court in the case of Lahore Textile and General Mills v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Supra) and the matter regarding 20% customs duty in respect of ring spinning frames (which are already manufactured in Pakistan) has also been dealt with by this Court in the case of Arshad Textile Mills Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Supra) in terms of these judgments, the respondents are entitled to claim surcharge, Iqra surcharge and 20% customs duty. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these five writ petitions which are dismissed with costs. The counsel's fee is fixed at Rupees Two Thousand (Rs.2000) in each case. The respondents shall be entitled to the counsel's fee in each case. H.B.T/T‑72/L Petition dismissed.