2005 PLP 778 (PTD)
Messrs AUTO CENTRE through Managing Partner Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 778 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmad and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs AUTO CENTRE through Managing Partner Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 778 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 778 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmad and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 778 (PTD) (Messrs AUTO CENTRE through Managing Partner Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zamiruddin for Petitioner:
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑The petitioner imported certain auto parts from Japan under L/C No.216860 and 216861. The goods were released on 26‑10‑1983 and duties and taxes leviable were paid. However, the petitioner purported to seek the L/C amended on 26‑12‑1983 to substitute the figure relating to the quantity of supplies to a larger sum. It is claimed that while determining the import value of similar goods, some importers were given the facility of 45 % of discount in the notified purchase price. The extent of such discount to the petitioner, however, was only confined to 35 % despite the fact that the petitioner had himself sought enhancement of value in the L/C. All the tribunals below found that such amendment was inconsequential because goods were cleared before the amendment .was notified. Indeed suppliers do normally grant substantial discounts to parties who purchase goods in large quantities, therefore, it is quite understandable that while 45% discount was granted to Ghandhara Autos, the amount of discount granted to the petitioner was left at. 35 %. These discounts were taken into consideration while determining the value of imported goods under section 25 of the Customs Act 1969. Obviously once the goods had been cleared upon receipt of payment by the supplier and documents were negotiated, the L/C cease to have effect. A formal amendment therein merely to enable‑ the petitioner to) claim discount at a higher rate did not bear any legal sanctity. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./A‑153/K Order accordingly.