2026 PLP 23 (PTD)
Messrs PAKO COMPUTERS Versus CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL through Chairman and 3 others
| Citation | 2026 PLP 23 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs PAKO COMPUTERS Versus CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL through Chairman and 3 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969), (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 23 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969), (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 23 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 23 (PTD) (Messrs PAKO COMPUTERS Versus CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL through Chairman and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Tahir and Khalilullah Jakhro for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2024.
- 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the instant matter the show-cause notice was issued on 29.5.2020 and the last date for passing the Order-in-Original ( ONO ) in terms of Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 was 28.08.2020, whereas, the adjudicating authority has stated in the ONO that time was extended by FBR till 30.11.2020. Insofar as the case of the Respondents is concerned, Mr. Ali Tahir, Advocate appearing on behalf of Post Clearance Audit has today placed on record, copy of Letter dated 22.09.2020 issued by FBR; whereby, certain extension was granted exercising powers under Section 179(4) of the Customs Act, 1969. He has contended that since an extension had been granted by FBR as above, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the ONO was not time barred. However, perusal of the said letter of FBR dated 22.09.2020 reflects that undisputedly such extension was granted after the mandatory period provided under Section 179(3) of the Act had already expired. To that there appears to be no dispute. Not only this, the request for extension was also made by the Adjudicating Authority on 14.09.2020; when the period for passing the ONO had already expired on 28.08.2020. Therefore, even if FBR had any jurisdiction to extend the time period it was done after the cut-off date; hence, was meaningless and was without lawful authority. It further appears that extension letter does not seem to have been issued in consonance with the powers conferred upon FBR under Section 179(4) ibid, whereas, no independent reasons of its own have been assigned by FBR; rather, the reasons stated by the Collector in his extension letter have been found to be justified. This is an incorrect approach as FBR cannot abdicate its authority so conferred under the Act in such a manner and ought to have given its own reasoning in line with Section 179(4) of the Act. In Collector of Customs Lahore v. HNR Company (Pvt.) Limited1, the Hon ble Supreme Court while dealing with a somewhat similar extension of time under Section 179(4) of the Act, without assigning cogent reasons has held that the provision of reasons for granting an extension of time is necessary so as to ensure that discretion has been exercised by the FBR on valid grounds transparently and in a structured manner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 179(3) & 179(4)
Statutory timeframe for adjudicating a matter
Extension granted after the timeframe
Effect
Contention of the Respondent /Collectorate was that since an extension had been granted by FBR, the Customs Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') was fully justified in holding that the Order-in-Original (ONO) was not time barred
Perusal of the relevant (extension granting) letter of FBR, undisputedly, reflected that such extension was granted after the mandatory period provided under S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act, 1969') had already expired
To that effect there appears to be no dispute; and even , the request for extension was also made by the Adjudicating Authority when the period for passing the ONO had already expired
Therefore, even if FBR had any jurisdiction to extend the time period it was done after the cut-off date; hence, was meaningless and was without lawful authority
Besides, said extension letter did not seem to have been issued in consonance with the powers conferred upon FBR under S.179(4) of Act, 1969 as no independent reasons of its own have been assigned by FBR; rather, the reasons stated by the Collector in his extension letter have been found to be justified, which is an incorrect approach as FBR cannot abdicate its authority so conferred under the Act, 1969 in such a manner and ought to have given its own reasoning in line with S.179(4) of the Act, 1969--Provision of reasons for granting an extension of time is necessary so as to ensure that discretion has been exercised by the FBR on valid grounds transparently and in a structured manner
Thus, the proposed question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the applicant and against the Respondent /Collectorate
High Court set aside the impugned orders
Special Customs Reference Applications were allowed accordingly. Civil Petitions Nos.2734 and 2735 of 2020 ref.
Ss.179 (3) & 179(4)
Statutory timeframe for adjudicating matter
Scope and effect
Contention of the Respondent /Collectorate was that the Customs Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') was fully justified in holding that the Order-in-Original (ONO) was not time barred as such period of limitation is directory and not mandatory
Wherever the Legislature has provided certain period for passing of an Order; then the said direction is mandatory and not directory and in that case non-compliance of such a mandatory provision would invalidate such act
In the present case , since adjudication was beyond time as prescribed in S.179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, the said decision was invalid
Wherever, the Legislature has provided certain period for passing of an Order; then the said direction is mandatory and not directory and in that case non-compliance of such a mandatory provision would invalidate such act
Since adjudication was beyond time as prescribed in S.179(3) of the Act 1969, therefore, the said decision was invalid
Thus, the proposed question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the applicant and against the Respondents / Collectorate
High Court set aside the impugned orders
Special Customs Reference Applications were allowed accordingly. Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v Customs Appellate Tribunal 2019 SCMR 1735 and The Collector of Sales Tax v. Super Asia Mohammad Din 2017 SCMR 1427 ref. Waseem Ahmad Malik for Applicants.
1. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1640/2023. Messrs Pako Computers, Karachi v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
2. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1641/2023. Messrs Pako Computers, Karachi v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
3. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1669/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
4. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1670/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
5. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1671/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
6. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1672/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
7. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1673/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
8. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1674/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
9. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1675/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
10. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1676/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
11. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1677/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
12. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1678/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
13. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1679/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
14. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1680/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
15. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1681/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
16. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1682/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
17. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1683/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
18. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1684/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
19. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1685/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
20. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1686/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
21. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1687/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
22. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1688/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
23. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1689/2023. Messrs Decent Computers, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
24. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1711/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
25. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1712/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
26. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1713/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
27. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1714/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
28. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1715/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
29. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1716/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
30. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1717/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
31. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1718/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
32. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1719/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
33. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1720/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
34. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1721/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
35. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1722/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
36. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1723/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
37. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1724/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
38. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1725/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
39. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1726/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
40. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1727/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
41. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1728/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
42. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1729/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
43. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1730/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
44. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1731/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
45. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1732/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
46. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1733/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
47. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1734/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
48. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1735/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
49. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1736/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
50. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1737/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
51. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1738/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
52. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1739/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
53. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1740/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
54. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1741/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
55. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1742/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
56. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1743/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
57. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1744/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
58. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1745/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
59. Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1746/2023. Messrs POP Global Distribution, Lahore and another v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, J.
Through these Reference Applications, the Applicants have impugned judgments dated 08.06.2023 and 09.06.2023 passed in Customs Appeal No. K-111 of 2021 and other connected matters proposing various questions of law. All impugned judgments are verbatim same, and therefore, all these Reference Applications have been heard together and are being decided through this common judgment. In all these Reference Applications there is only one common legal question which can decide the entire controversy as the same now stands decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. The said question reads as under:- III. Whether the learned Tribunal has fallen into error of law by not taking into account that the impugned order-in-original is hit by limitation prescribed in subsection (3) of Section 179 of Customs Act, 1969?
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the instant matter the show-cause notice was issued on 29.5.2020 and the last date for passing the Order-in-Original ( ONO ) in terms of Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 was 28.08.2020, whereas, the adjudicating authority has stated in the ONO that time was extended by FBR till 30.11.2020. Insofar as the case of the Respondents is concerned, Mr. Ali Tahir, Advocate appearing on behalf of Post Clearance Audit has today placed on record, copy of Letter dated 22.09.2020 issued by FBR; whereby, certain extension was granted exercising powers under Section 179(4) of the Customs Act, 1969. He has contended that since an extension had been granted by FBR as above, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the ONO was not time barred. However, perusal of the said letter of FBR dated 22.09.2020 reflects that undisputedly such extension was granted after the mandatory period provided under Section 179(3) of the Act had already expired. To that there appears to be no dispute. Not only this, the request for extension was also made by the Adjudicating Authority on 14.09.2020; when the period for passing the ONO had already expired on 28.08.2020. Therefore, even if FBR had any jurisdiction to extend the time period it was done after the cut-off date; hence, was meaningless and was without lawful authority. It further appears that extension letter does not seem to have been issued in consonance with the powers conferred upon FBR under Section 179(4) ibid, whereas, no independent reasons of its own have been assigned by FBR; rather, the reasons stated by the Collector in his extension letter have been found to be justified. This is an incorrect approach as FBR cannot abdicate its authority so conferred under the Act in such a manner and ought to have given its own reasoning in line with Section 179(4) of the Act. In Collector of Customs Lahore v. HNR Company (Pvt.) Limited1, the Hon ble Supreme Court while dealing with a somewhat similar extension of time under Section 179(4) of the Act, without assigning cogent reasons has held that the provision of reasons for granting an extension of time is necessary so as to ensure that discretion has been exercised by the FBR on valid grounds transparently and in a structured manner.
3. As to the finding of the Tribunal that such period of limitation is directory and not mandatory, with respect are unable to agree with it as the Supreme Court2 has already decided it against the department in various cases under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as well as The Customs Act, 1969, as both the statutes have analogous provisions insofar as passing of ONO within a certain period of time is concerned. It has been held that wherever the legislature has provided certain period for passing of an Order; then the said direction is mandatory and not directory and in that case non-compliance of such a mandatory provision would invalidate such act. It has been further held that since adjudication was beyond time as prescribed in Section 179(3) of the Act; therefore, the said decision is invalid. In Super Asia (Supra) it has been held that wherever, the legislature has provided certain period for passing of an Order; then the said direction is mandatory and not directory and in that case non-compliance of such a mandatory provision would invalidate such act. In Mujahid Soap (Supra) it was held that since adjudication was beyond time as prescribed in Section 179(3) of the Act; therefore, the said decision is invalid. Both these views have been followed and affirmed in the case of A.J. Traders (Supra).
4. Accordingly, the proposed question as above, is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents and as a consequence thereof, answer to the remaining Question(s) would be an academic exercise; hence, we deem it appropriate not to answer the same. The Reference Applications are hereby allowed by setting aside the impugned order(s) to the extent of the present Applicants. Office is directed to sent copy of this order to Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, in terms of subsection (5) of Section 196 of Customs Act, 1969. Office shall also place copy of this order in the connected Reference Applications. MQ/P-2/Sindh Reference allowed. 1 Order dated 28.09.2021 in Civil Petitions Nos.2734 and 2735 of 2020 2 2 Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Customs Appellate Tribunal (2019 SCMR 1735); The Collector of Sales Tax v. Super Asia Mohammad Din (2017 SCMR 1427) and respectfully followed in the case of A.J. Traders v. Collector of Customs (PLD 2022 SC 817), followed by this Court in SCRA No. 119 of 2024 (Director, Directorate General, Intelligence and Investigation (Customs), Karachi v. M/s. Chase Up.)