2009 PTD 1127 (PLP)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM, KARACHI Versus Messrs MIA CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2009 PTD 1127 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Athar Saeed and Salman Talibuddin, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM, KARACHI Versus Messrs MIA CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Customs-Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PTD 1127 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs-Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PTD 1127 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Athar Saeed and Salman Talibuddin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PTD 1127 (PLP) (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM, KARACHI Versus Messrs MIA CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Hayat for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 194-C(3-A)
Appeal involving question of law
Scope
Member Technical of Appellate Tribunal while sitting singly could not decide such matter. Collector of Customs v. Muzammil Ahmed 2009 PTD 266 rel. Raja M. Iqbal for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
By this Special Customs Reference Application filed against the order of the Tribunal, dated 9-10-2007 in Customs Appeal No.K-481 of 2006 the following questions said to have arisen from that order have been proposed for the opinion of this Court:-- (1) In view of the provision of section 32(5) of the Customs Act, 1969 whether the Member Tribunal was justified in giving his own interpretation of the said provision of law? (2) Whether the valuation issued by the Deputy Controller Valuation was in accordance with law? (3) Whether the Member Tribunal has rightly interpreted/read the provisions of section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969? (4) Whether the provisions of section 25(7) as interpreted by the Member Tribunal is justified and in accordance with law? Mr. Raja M. Iqbal the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order has been passed by a Member Technical sitting singly and since matters of law are involved, therefore, this order is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Muzammil Ahmed (2009 PTD 266). We have examined the impugned order and are of the considered view that the appeal before the Member Technical involved matter of law and, therefore, in view of the above judgment of this Court, the impugned order could not have been passed by Member Technical sitting singly. Therefore, following the above judgment, we will remand the case back to the Tribunal to be placed before an appropriate Bench for de novo disposal after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard. Such exercise may preferably he completed within a period of three months. S.A.K./C-15/K Case remanded.