1998 PLP 267 (SCMR)
CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs FLYING BOARD & PAPER PRODUCTS‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 267 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs FLYING BOARD & PAPER PRODUCTS‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 267 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 267 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan, Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 267 (SCMR) (CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs FLYING BOARD & PAPER PRODUCTS‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 18th November, 1996.
- M. Saleem Sahgal, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Ejaz Ahmad Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan (in C.M. No. 1146-L of 1996 in Civil Petition No.2092-L of 1996 in the connected Writ Petition No. 16810 of 1995 also disposed of by the impugned judgment).
- C.M. No.1146-L/1996:- The learned counsel for the applicants states that regulatory duty in question having been recovered through coercion from the applicants, the action was challenged in the proceedings before the learned High Court where undertaking was given by the petitioners that in case the respondents' Writ Petition is accepted the regulatory duty recovered would be refunded to the petitioners/applicants with interest. Now that Writ Petition has been accepted the Department failed to honour the commitment for refund of the amount. Learned counsel appearing for the department categorically stated that to his knowledge so far no such request has been made for the amount and if any such request is made. The said amount would be refunded in accordance with law and the undertaking given in Court. Accordingly, the applicants are directed to approach the Department for the needful.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28‑8‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No. 17231 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 19‑‑‑Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Doctrine of promissory estoppel ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, whether Authorities were entitled to recover regulatory duty on goods partially or totally exempted from customs duty and as to whether goods of respondents were not chargeable as such on doctrine of promissory estoppel. Ejaz Ahmad Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan (in C.M. No. 1146‑L of 1996 in Civil Petition No.2092‑L of 1996 in the connected Writ Petition No. 16810 of 1995 also disposed of by the impugned judgment).
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.
Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, whether the petitioners were entitled to recover regulatory duty on the goods partially or totally exempted from customs duty and as to whether goods of the respondents were not chargeable as such on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. C.M. No.1124-L/1996:- While clearing the goods, the respondents shall deliver post-dated cheques to the petitioners equivalent to the amount of regulatory duty in dispute duly endorsed by the bank and also furnish Indemnity Bond to the satisfaction of Assistant Collector (Bonds) concerned as per the arrangement made during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court, till the disposal of the appeal. C.M. No.1146-L/1996:- The learned counsel for the applicants states that regulatory duty in question having been recovered through coercion from the applicants, the action was challenged in the proceedings before the learned High Court where undertaking was given by the petitioners that in case the respondents' Writ Petition is accepted the regulatory duty recovered would be refunded to the petitioners/applicants with interest. Now that Writ Petition has been accepted the Department failed to honour the commitment for refund of the amount. Learned counsel appearing for the department categorically stated that to his knowledge so far no such request has been made for the amount and if any such request is made. The said amount would be refunded in accordance with law and the undertaking given in Court. Accordingly, the applicants are directed to approach the Department for the needful. Disposed of accordingly. A. A./C-2/S Order accordingly