2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar‑ul‑Majeed, Member (Technical) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar‑ul‑Majeed, Member (Technical).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.
- Imran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.156‑‑‑C.B.R. Letter No.1/1/Mach/Mist/2001, dated 30‑4‑2001‑‑‑Ministry of Commerce's Letter No. 1(29)/2001‑R.O. (Imp), dated 10‑4‑2001‑‑‑Punishment of offence‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Surcharge‑‑‑Import of goods not notified for import‑‑‑Imposition of penalty equal to 30% of the assessed value‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellate Tribunal directed to pay 10% surcharge at the invoice value instead of penalty equal to 30% of the assessable value of goods in view of the letters issued by the Central Board of Revenue and Ministry of Commerce and in view of law decided earlier on the issue.
Judgment & Decree
Imran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 2002. MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).‑‑‑This appeal is directed against the Order in Original No.18 of 2001, dated 21‑8‑2001 (dispatched on 1‑9‑2001) passed by the learned Additional Collector, Customs (HQ), Nabha Road, Lahore whereby the appellant has been imposed a penalty equal to 30% of the assessable value of the goods which were released on payment of duty and taxes as the same were found to be classifiable under PCT Heading 5911.9010. The consignment consisted of 100% Synthetic Dryer Screens/Conventional Wovem Dryer Screens valuing Rs.7,37,221 imported from India which did not figure in the list notified for importation from India.
2. During the course of arguments on 25‑2‑2002 learned counsel for the appellant relied on an Order‑in‑Original No.4 of 2001, dated 8‑5‑2001 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Customs (HQ). Lahore whereby similar goods imported from India were allowed to be released on payment of 10% surcharge on the invoice value in addition to duties and taxes leviable thereon. This Order‑in‑Original was passed in view of letter No.1(29) of 2001‑R.O. (Imp), dated 10‑4‑2001 issued by Research Officer (Imports), Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad which was forwarded by the C.B.R. through its Secretary (Tariff‑II) vide letter No.1/1/Mach/Misc/2001, dated 30‑4‑2001. The learned counsel for the appellant requested that the instant appeal may be disposed of in terms of the Order‑in‑Original No.4 produced by him in Court. A copy of the said Order‑in‑Original was placed on record and another copy was handed over to the learned D.R. who examined the same in Court and agreed that since the aforementioned Order‑in‑Original was based on a letter issued by the Ministry of Commerce, therefore, the same may be followed and the instant appeal may be disposed of.
4. Keeping in view the Order‑in‑Original No.4 placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the agreement of the two sides for disposal of the instant appeal in terms of the Order‑in‑Original No.4 of 2001, we direct that the appellant will pay 10% surcharge at the invoice value instead of penalty equal to 30% of the assessable value of the goods. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. C.M.A./716/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.