2007 PLP 1211 (PTD)
Messrs ABDULLAH CORPORATION Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1211 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | Messrs ABDULLAH CORPORATION Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1211 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1211 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1211 (PTD) (Messrs ABDULLAH CORPORATION Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Nawaz Cheema for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25 & 32
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional Petition
Constitutional petition was tiled against a show-cause notice under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969, re-opening the assessment of goods imported by petitioner and cleared by him after payment of duties
Goods of the petitioner stood released and all that he was being asked to do, was to answer impugned show-cause notice
No final action against petitioner had been taken by the authorities
Proceedings under the impugned show-cause notice were subject to hearing of the petitioner
All objections by the petitioner were liable to be heard and decided in those proceedings in accordance with law which included the obligation of the authorities to deal with the objections and the law, if same were raised before them
No ground was available at that stage to interfere with the impugned action in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Messrs Sohrab Global Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director v. Deputy Collector of Customs Lahore and 4 others 2005 PTD 67; Messrs Punjab Arms Co., Lahore through Proprietor v. Deputy Collector of Customs (Group-IV) Lahore and 4 others 2005 PTD 86 and Messrs S.T.B. International through proprietor v. Collector of Customs Lahore and 5 others 2006 PTD 232 ref.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
This petition is filed against a show-cause notice under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, dated 19-12-2006 re-opening the assessment of goods imported by the petitioner and cleared by him after payment of duties. Learned counsel submits that the basis of the impugned show-cause notice is a valuation advice, dated 14-6-2006. He objects to the validity of the said advice on two grounds, namely that at the time of its issuance the respondents did not have authority to issue the same which has been conferred subsequently under the Finance Act, 2006; and that in any event the said advice fails to satisfy the conditions of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 in order to validly override the petitioner's declared value.
2. In the mind of the Court the assessment of liability of the imported goods particularly on the question of valuation is regulated strictly by section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. On this question a declaration of law 'has been given by the Court in several cases including Messrs Sohrab Global Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director v. Deputy Collector of Customs Lahore and 4 others (2005 PTD 67) Messrs Punjab Aries Co., Lahore through Proprietor v. Deputy Collector of Customs (Group-IV) Lahore and 4 others (2005 PTD 86) and Messrs S.T.P. International through proprietor v. Collector of Customs Lahore and 5 others (2006 PTD 232).
3. Presently, the goods of the petitioner stand released and all that petitioner is being asked to do is to answer the impugned show-cause notice. No final action against the petitioner has yet been taken by the respondents. Also the proceedings under the impugned show-cause notice are subject to hearing the petitioner. All objections by the petitioner are liable to be heard and decided in those proceedings in accordance with law. This includes the obligation of the respondents to deal with the objections and the law mentioned above in this order, if the same are raised before them. Consequently, this Court does not see any ground at this stage to interfere with the impugned action in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Disposed of. H.B.T./A-62/L Petition dismissed.