PTD 2017

2017 PLP 1272 (PTD)

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus LUCKY CEMENT LTD. through Chief Executive

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar High Court
Decided Date
Custom Reference No.28-P of 2014, decided on 18th January, 2017.
Honorable Judges
Waqar Ahmed Seth and Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 1272 (PTD)
Forum / Court Peshawar High Court
Bench Members Waqar Ahmed Seth and Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, JJ
Parties COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus LUCKY CEMENT LTD. through Chief Executive
Primary Law Customs Act (IV of 1969)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1272 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1272 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Waqar Ahmed Seth and Rooh-ul-Amin Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1272 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus LUCKY CEMENT LTD. through Chief Executive). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Customs Act (IV of 1969)

Representation

  • Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Petitioner.
  • Issac Ali Qazi and Ishtiaq Ahmed for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 196

Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 296(1) & 297(2)

Notifications S.R.O. No. 450(I)/2001, dated 18-06-2001, S.R.O. No.450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001 and S.R.O. No.766(I)/2009, dated 04-09-2009, S.R.O. No.1119(I)/2011, dated 28-12-2011

Duty and Tax Remission for Exports Rules, 2001, R.297(2)(b)

Import Policy Order, 2009, paras. 6 & 11

Reference

Duty and Tax Remission for Exports (DTRE)

Tire derived fuel

Rubber wastage/tire scrap

Show cause notice was issued to importers on the ground that rubber wastes/tire scrap was not covered within definitions of "input goods"

Adjudicating officer set aside show cause notice issued to importers and his order was maintained by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Validity

Disputed imported rubber wastes/tire scrap in shredded form was not specifically defined as 'input goods' nor importers had complied with provisions of mandatory requirements

Import in question was made in clear violation of Duty and Tax Remission for Exports Rules, 2001, R.297(2)(b) read with R.296 of Customs Rules, 2001 were in violation of paragraphs 6 and 11 of Import Policy Order, 2009

Importers did not obtain any permission, consent and approval from competent authority to import and consume rubber wastes/tire scrap in shredded form

Importers had also not complied with guidelines as provided

Restrictions imposed through Notifications and amended paragraphs were applicable to import of disputed rubber wastes for the period 01-03-2012 to 30-01-2013

Importers did not comply with directions of Environmental Protection Agency contained in Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) for particular purpose

Rubber wastes/tire scrap in shredded form could not be considered 'input goods' according to Rr.296(l)(i) and 297 of Customs Rules, 2001 and Notification S.R.O. No.450(I)/2001, dated 18-06-2001

High Court set aside orders passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as well as by adjudicating officer

Reference was allowed in circumstances.