2001 SCMR 1547 (PLP)
HYDERABAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MODERN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 SCMR 1547 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HYDERABAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MODERN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 SCMR 1547 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 SCMR 1547 (PLP)?
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: 2001 SCMR 1547 (PLP) (HYDERABAD and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MODERN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ali Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court with A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20‑12‑1999 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P.D‑1263 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑S.18‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3j‑‑‑Regulatory duty‑‑ Charging of such duty in excess of the rate fixed‑‑‑Authorities demanded regulatory duty at the rate of 10 % of the import of goods‑‑‑Demand of such duty was set aside by the High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Rate of customs duty under the Schedule was 20% ad valorem, the regulatory duty imposed could not exceed the rate of 10%‑‑ Regulatory duty at the rate of 30 % could not be claimed‑‑‑No legal infirmity in the judgment passed by High Court existed and the provision of S.18(2) of Customs Act, 1969, was properly interpreted‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Yousuf Re‑Rolling Mills v. Collector of Customs PLD 1988 SC 232 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ali Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court with A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2000. HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20‑12‑1999 in Constitutional Petition No.D‑1263 of 1986 (Modern Textile Mills Limited v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and another) passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, whereby the Constitutional Petition filed by the respondents was allowed to the extent that they are liable to pay regulatory duty at the rate of 10% of the import of the goods, i.e. Rs.3,78,885 and Rs.4,48,680 on the two consignments.
2. The facts of the case need not be stated here as they have been elaborately stated in the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned High Court has not correctly interpreted section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969.
5. Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 reads:‑‑ "the Federal Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, levy, subject to such conditions, limitations or restrictions as it may deem fit to impose, a regulatory duty on all or any of the articles specified in the First Schedule at a rate not exceeding fifty per cent of the rate, if any, specified therein or at a rate not exceeding hundred per cent of the value of such articles, as determined under section 25 and may by a like notification, levy a regulatory duty on all or any of the articles exported from Pakistan:‑‑ (i) in the case of articles enumerated in the Second Schedule at a rate not exceeding thirty per cent of the rate specified in the Second Schedule or of the amount which would represent the value of such articles as determined under section 25; and (ii) in the case of article not enumerated in the Second Schedule, at the rate not exceeding thirty per cent of the amount which represents the value of such articles as determined under section 25. " The learned Division Bench of the High Court while relying upon the decision of this Court Yousuf Re‑Rolling Mills v. Collector of Customs PLD 1988 SC 232 came to the conclusion that such duty cannot exceed the rate of 50 % of the rate of duty mentioned in the Schedule. Admittedly, the rate of customs duty under the Schedule was 20% ad valorem the regulatory duty imposed, therefore, it could not exceed the rate of 10 %. Thus, the regulatory duty at the rate of 30 % ad valorem could not be claimed by the petitioner/respondent.
6. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. There has been no improper interpretation of section 18(2) of the Customs l Act, 1969. Leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./C‑30/S Petition dismissed.