1989 PLP 1109 (SCMR)
Mian ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1109 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Mian ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1109 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1109 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1109 (SCMR) (Mian ABDUR REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad Shaikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4‑10‑1981 in W.P. No.12044 of 1980). Pakistan Tariff' Act (XXXII of 1934)‑‑ ‑‑‑3.2‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.30‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Disparity in levy of Custom duty pointed out‑‑Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in order to satisfy itself with regard to the question whether department had any good answer regarding the disparity, as reply of department to the petition was not found to be entirely satisfactory.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by an importer against the levy of custom duty at a certain rate; and consequential dismissal of his writ petition, m this behalf. Learned counsel has taken us through the impugned judgment and the record at pages 28 and 47 (Paper Book) ‑ the bills of entry regarding the commodity in question (Urea Moulding Compound); one, relating to the petitioner's import, and the other, relating to the import by a third party ‑Qureshi Enterprises. In petitioner's case the duty has been charged at the rate of 120% while in the case of Oureshi Enterprises it has been charged at the rate of 40%. Learned counsel contended that such discrimination was not permitted by law. And the High Court's judgment besides being erroneous on other points, suffers from legal infirmity that after having noted the point it has not dealt with it. In order to satisfy ourselves with regard other question whether the respondent,/department had any good answer regarding the disparity, learned counsel drew our attention to their reply in this behalf; which having been perused, has not been found to be entirely satisfactory. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. M.BA./A‑463/S Leave granted.