2026 PLP 678 (PTD)
SHAIKH PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus The CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and others
| Citation | 2026 PLP 678 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, ACJ and Mohammad Abdur Rahman, J |
| Parties | SHAIKH PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus The CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and others |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 678 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 678 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, ACJ and Mohammad Abdur Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 678 (PTD) (SHAIKH PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus The CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Zafar Hussain for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Commissioner Inland Revenue v RYK Mills Lahore 2023 SCMR 1856; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sargodha Spinning Mills 2022 SCMR 1082; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. MCB Bank Limited, 2021 PTD 1367 and Wateen Telecom Limited v Commissioner Inland Revenue 2015 PTD 936 ref. Imran Iqbal Khan for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, ACJ.
Through these Reference Applications, the Applicants have impugned a common judgment dated 09.03.2024 passed in Customs Appeal No. K-223 of 2018 and other connected matters by Judicial Member Bench-I, Customs Appellate Tribunal at Karachi, proposing various questions of law; however, perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that the Tribunal has failed to give any reasoned finding on its own and has dismissed the appeal by merely observing that the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi is well reasoned.
2. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has not dilated upon the facts nor on law and has passed the judgment in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. Such an approach is not only incorrect and not appreciable; but is at the same time, a burden on this Court. Time and again such matters are to be remanded due to such approach of the Tribunal, which amounts to sheer wastage of this Courts time and also burdens the Importer as well as the department with additional costs for no fault of theirs. Moreover, per settled law, the highest authority for factual determination in tax matters is the Tribunal1; therefore, the Tribunal is required in law to determine the facts finally so that none of the parties are prejudiced in further proceedings including Reference Applications before this Court which are to be decided only on questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal s observation that the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi is well reasoned does not suffice; nor fulfils the minimum requirements of passing of orders in accordance with law.
3. In view of the above, we are left with no choice but to set-aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh and pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties.
4. Let a copy of this order be issued to the Tribunal as required in Section 196(5) of the Customs Act, 1969. A copy of this order shall also be placed in the connected Reference Applications. MQ/S-19/Sindh Case remanded. 1 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. RYK Mills Lahore; (SC citation 2023 SCMR 1856); Also see Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sargodha Spinning Mills, (2022 SCMR 1082); Commissioner Inland Revenue v. MCB Bank Limited, (2021 PTD 1367) and Wateen Telecom Limited v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2015 PTD 936)