1993 PLP 199 (CLC)
KHALID TEXTILE MILLS LTD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 199 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian CJ and Qaisar Ahmad Hamidi J |
| Parties | KHALID TEXTILE MILLS LTD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 199 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 199 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian CJ and Qaisar Ahmad Hamidi J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 199 (CLC) (KHALID TEXTILE MILLS LTD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalid Anwer for Petitioner.
- Hussain Adil Khatri Standing Counsel for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 18 (2) & First Sched‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Rate of regulatory duty on cone winder machines‑‑‑Regulatory duty could be imposed to the extent of 50% (per cent) of the customs duty provided in the First Schedule of Customs Act 1969‑‑‑Customs duty having been provided at the rate of 40%a regulatory duty could have been to the extent of 20% and not more‑‑‑Regulatory duty in excess of 20% was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Naveed Textile Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector (Appraising) Custom House, Karachi and others PLD 1985 SC 92 and M/ s. Yousuf Re‑Rolling Mills v. The Collector of Customs and others PLD 1989 SC 232 rel.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑‑The above petition involves two points namely, whether Cone Winder Machines were subject to the levy of the customs duty and secondly what should have been the rate of regulatory duty. On the first point Mr. Khalid Anwer concedes that there is a Supreme Court judgment namely, in the case of Naveed Textile Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector (Appraising) Custom House, Karachi and others reported in PLD 1985 SC 92, whereas on the second point the case of M/s. Yousuf Re‑Rolling Mills v. The Collector of Customs and others reported in PLD 1989 SC 232, is in favour of the petitioner wherein it has been held that under subsection (2) of section 18 of the Customs Act, regulatory duty can be imposed to the extent of 50% of the customs duty provided in the First Schedule on the Articles mentioned therein. In the instant case the First Schedule provided customs duty at the rate of 40% and, therefore, regulatory duty could have been to the extent of 20%. We would, therefore, allow the above petition on the second point and declare that the regulatory duty in excess of 20% is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The above petition stands disposed of but there will be no order as to costs. AA./K‑301/K Petition accepted.