2005 PLP 257 (PTD)

SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.

The facts of this case appear to be very simple. The petitioner have been importing raw material for manufacture of Dettol and such material has been subjected to Customs duty subject to exemptions available under section 19 of the Customs Act from time to time. Under S.R.O. 117(I)/84, dated 12-1-1984 goods specified in the annex through the notification imported by an approved manufacturer of drugs and falling in the category of "pharmaceutical products" under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Customs Act were exempted from payment of customs duty and sales tax. This notification was replaced by S.R.O.349(I)/85, dated 15-4-1985 and it may be proper to reproduce the operative part thereof:-- "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of .1969), and subsection (1) of section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 (III of 1951), and in supersession of its Notification No. S.R.O. 117(1)/84; dated the 12th January, 1984 the Federal Government is pleased to exempt the goods specified in the Annex to this notification imported by a manufacturer, approved by the Director-General, Health, Government of Pakistan under the Drugs Act, 1976 (XXXI of 1976), for manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), from the Customs duties chargeable thereon and the sales tax leviable thereon, subject to the following conditions, namely:-" It may be added that the benefits under this notification were given retrospective effect from the date of registration of the drugs as has been acknowledged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pfizer Laboratories v. Federation of Pakistan (Civil Appeals Nos.350 and 351 of 1993), decided on 23-4-1994. It is evident from the terms of the above quoted notification that the benefit of exemption from duties and taxes were available when:-- (i) the goods were specified in the annex to the notification; (ii) they were imported by a manufacturer approved by the Director General Health under the Drugs Act; and (iii) they were imported for manufacturer of pharmaceutical products Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Customs Act. Messrs Jawed Farooqui and Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the ram material imported by the petitioner was admittedly meant for manufacture of Dettol, which was an antiseptic classifiable under Chapter 38 of the First Schedule to the Customs Act. Mr. Zaidi however, contended that as long as the goods were registered as drugs, ii was inconsequential under which particular chapter of the aforesaid Schedule they fall. We do not think it is necessary to examine the two contentions in depth. In any event it was evident from the terms of the notification that apart from being covered by Chapter 30 of the First Schedule and being registered under the Drugs Act, the benefit of the exemption could only be claimed if the goods were specified in the annex to the notification. Unfortunately the goods imported by the petitioner have not been identified in the memo. of petition. Mr. Zaidi attempted to contend that the petitioner had filed a list of some 75 items, which have neither been described in full, nor has an affidavit or other document been filed to indicate that they were imported by the petitioner. Nevertheless he emphatically argued that as long as the petitioner was importing raw material for manufacture of drugs, the description of the material was irrelevant. Therefore, even the complete notification, dated 19-4-1985 was not presented before the Court and learned counsel was unable to identify which of the first six items that were mentioned were being imported by the petitioner. Learned counsel attempted to refer to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pfizer Laboratories case (reproduced earlier), but having carefully gone through the same we have noticed that neither the pronouncement of the apex Court, nor that of this Court upon remand supports his contentions. It was clearly observed that the goods needed to be mentioned in the annex to the notification and were so identified. In the circumstances, we have no option, but to hold, that an; essential condition for grant of exemption was not fulfilled. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.B.A./R-29/K Petition dismissed.