2025 PLP 571 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Additional Collector of Customs Versus Messrs SINGER PAKISTAN
| Citation | 2025 PLP 571 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Agha Faisal, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Additional Collector of Customs Versus Messrs SINGER PAKISTAN |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 571 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 571 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Agha Faisal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 571 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Additional Collector of Customs Versus Messrs SINGER PAKISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 32 [as amended vide Finance Act, 2014]
Powers of Customs Authorities
Scope
Matter relating to Show-Cause Notice issued in the year 2014
Collectorate filed Special Customs Reference Application against the order in favour of importer / respondent
Subject consignment, as imported by the respondent, pertained to the regime prior to the amendments carried out in S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969
Main controversy was that whether the Custom Authorities acting as a collecting agent of customs, excise, sales tax, had jurisdiction under the law and accordingly respective Tribunals were operating and functioning in the like manner
Held, that Show-Cause Notice for short levy of the respective taxes under income tax, sales tax and excise etc. were to be independently resurrected in their own regime
Customs at the time of import acted as a collecting agent, however, once the goods had been released then the respective/concerned department would act on their own hierarchy for the recovery of these Taxes
Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as well as Sales Tax Act, 1990, provide a specific procedure for collection of taxes and have their respective forums for enforcing and recovering the short payment made be the importers
Hence, the recovery of un-collected taxes could not be entrusted upon Customs Officials once the goods had been imported and were out of charge
However, this was a situation prior to the amendment carried out under S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, on the basis of which the subject Show-Cause Notice was issued on 21.02.2014, which was issued on the basis of a contravention report of 10.12.2012 regarding concessional rates in income tax at the rate of 3% on the import of raw material
Thus, prior to 2014 before the amendment was carried out in S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 ,the object could not have been legitimately carried out
Thus, the proposed moot question was answered in negative i.e. in favour of respondent and against the applicant/Collectorate, leaving the remaining questions, as proposed by the applicant redundant
Special Customs Reference Application, filed by the Collectorate, was dismissed, in circumstances. Kashif Nazeer for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
This Special Customs Reference Application involves a show-cause notice dated 21.02.2014 followed by an Order-in-Original No.50 of 2014-2015 and judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal in Customs Appeal No.K-1113 of 2014 and Customs Appeal No.K-661 of 2015. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the record. The subject consignment, as imported by the respondent, pertains to the regime prior to the amendments carried out in Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The main controversy was that custom authorities acting as a collecting agent of customs, excise, sales tax have jurisdiction under the law and accordingly respective Tribunals were operating and functioning in the like manner. The show-cause notice for short levy of the respective taxes under income tax, sales tax and excise etc. are to be independently resurrected in their own regime. The customs at the time of import acted as a collecting agent however once the goods have been released then the respective/concerned department would act on their own hierarchy for the recovery of these taxes. Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as well as Sales Tax Act, 1990 provides a specific procedure for collection of taxes and have their respective forums for enforcing and recovering the short payment made by the importers. Hence, the recovery of un-collected taxes could not be entrusted upon customs officials once the goods have been imported and out of charge. This was however a situation prior to the amendment carried out under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 on the basis of which the subject show-cause notice was issued on 21.02.2014, which was issued on the basis of a contravention report of 10.12.2012 regarding concessional rates in income tax at the rate of 3% on the import of raw material. Thus prior to 2014 before the amendment was carried out in section 32 the object could not have been legitimately carried out. The proposed moot question No.1 i.e. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has not erred in law by not considering that the powers for recovery of short levied tax is vested to customs authorities in terms of Section 32 read with Section 202 of the Customs Act?, as such is answered in negative in favour of respondent and against the applicant, leaving the remaining questions, as proposed by the applicant redundant. Resultantly this Special Customs Reference Application is dismissed along with listed application. A copy of the order be sent under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Karachi in terms of Section 196(5) of Customs Act, 1969. MQ/C-1/Sindh Reference dismissed.