1989 PLP 346 (CLC)
AHMED MARITIME BROKERS (Pvt.) Ltd. Petitioner Versus THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)
| Citation | 1989 PLP 346 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ |
| Parties | AHMED MARITIME BROKERS (Pvt.) Ltd. Petitioner Versus THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 346 (CLC)?
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 346 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 346 (CLC) (AHMED MARITIME BROKERS (Pvt.) Ltd. Petitioner Versus THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rasheed Akhund for Petitioner.
- Imam Ali Kazi,Dy. A.‑G. for Respondents
Headnotes / Summary
Sched. Notification dated 30‑12‑1987‑‑Customs duty Imported consignment comprising of Shredded scraps of iron Release of consignment ordered on payment of customs duty at the rate of Rs.418 per metric ton and on furnishing an Insurance guarantee with 14 per cent mark up.
Judgment & Decree
Imam Ali Kazi,Dy. A.‑G. for Respondents AJMAL MIAN, J. By this common order we intend to dispose of the three Miscellaneous Applications, whereby the petitioners have sought the release of the imported consignment comprises of Shredded scraps of iron on payment of customs duty at the rate of Rs.418 per metric ton in place of ad valorem customs duty at the rate of 20$ and sales tax 12~$ in terms of Notification dated 30‑12‑1987. Mr. Rasheed Akhund in support of the above applications has raised two‑fold contentions namely that in view of the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court case namely Ali Samroz reported in 1986 SCMR 1917, the aforesaid Notification cannot be made applicable retrospectively in respect of the transactions in respect of which definite commitments in the form of inter alia L/C were opened prior to the Notification and, secondly, the impugned Notification purports to modify item No.73.03 of the First Schedule to Customs Act. He has further submitted that in Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑23 of 1988 and 73 of 1988 another Division Bench of this Court in identical cases by orders dated 21‑1‑1988 and 1‑2‑1988 have allowed the release on payment of customs duty at the rate of Rs.418 per metric ton without asking for a bank guarantee or other security for the disputed amount. On the other hand Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, learned Deputy Attorney General has submitted that in a number of other cases the bank guarantees have been furnished by the petitioners for the disputed amount and the above orders do not constitute precedent for the purpose of binding the same on this Division Bench. It is true that in number of cases where the ratio decidendi of Al‑Samroz case has been pressed into service, this Court has been consistently ordering furnishing of bank guarantee with 14$ mark up. However, Mr. Rasheed Akhund has vehemently submitted that in the cases of Shredded Scrap which are covered by above two orders, no bank guarantee has been asked for. He has also submitted that the Court should pass consistent orders in identical cases. We cannot say as to why in the above two cases the bank guarantee or any other security was not asked for but the fact remains that the goods were allowed to be released on payment of customs duty at the rate of Rs.418 per metric ton. In our view, the proper and just order would be to allow the release of the goods on payment of customs duty at the above rate and on furnishing an Insurance Guarantee with 14% mark up to the satisfaction of respondent No.1 of an approved Insurance Company. M.Y.H./A‑424/K Order accordingly.