Home Maxims & Terms Mandatory prerequisites meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Mandatory prerequisites

Mandatory prerequisites legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2012 PTD 1650 Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Judicial Precedent
S. 32Allegation of misdeclarationApplication of S.32, Customs Act, 1969Mandatory prerequisites

Issue for consideration was, whether allegation of misdeclaration levelled at against the importer, was factually and legally sustainable

Allegation of misdeclaration in terms of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 had been levelled against the importer on the basis of an irrelevant, vague and incomplete invoice purported to be issued by another shipper

Retrieved invoices had neither been prepared by the importer nor those had been delivered by the importer to the Customs Authorities

Authorities had not been able to produce any evidence against the importer in respect of opening of letter of credit or remittance of foreign exchange for the purpose of importation of the subject goods at enhanced price against the "so called" invoice

Onus of proof lay on the customs

Case seemed to have been built up by the authorities on the basis of retrieved documents assumed to be commercial invoices, which were not to be relied upon for institution of a case of misdeclaration against the importer in terms of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969

In order to attract the mischief of punitive provision of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969, the mandatory prerequisite was that accused should have made or signed or declared or caused the same before Customs Authorities on the form of any declaration notices, certificate or any documents, or should have made any statement while replying the queries put to him by an officer of Customs, with knowledge and belief that such documents or statements were false in any material particular

In absence of any document, declaration notice made, signed or delivered to the Customs Authorities, the charge of misdeclaration, could not be framed against the importer

Said issue was answered in the negative.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Mandatory prerequisites", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124938200

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Mandatory prerequisites"

PLD 1995
Constitutional Petition No. 542 of 1993, decided on 8th September, 1994.

P L D 1995 Quetta 36

NIAZ AHMED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SELECTION COMMITTEE through its

Court: ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑ ‑‑Admission Policy of Balochistan College of Engineering, Khuzdar; para. 2.11‑‑ ‑Constitutional petition‑ ‑ Admission in Engineering College‑ ‑‑Petitioner being simultaneously in possession of Diploma in Associate Engineering and F.Sc. Certificate, concealed such fact while filling his admission form‑‑ ‑Petitioner's F.Sc. Certificate was cancelled by Disciplinary Committee and admission to Engineering College was refused‑‑ ‑Petitioner also concealed the factum of his Government service which he had obtained on basis of his Diploma in Associate Engineering‑ ‑‑Effect‑‑ ‑Petitioner had concealed his employment as sub‑Engineer in a Government Department and on this score alone he could have been knocked out from the competition as no Government servant was eligible to take admission in Engineering College‑‑‑Such fact also indicated that High Court had not been approached with clean hands, thus, the principle "he who seeks equity must do equity", had been violated‑‑‑Petitioner's F.Sc. Certificate having been cancelled by Disciplinary Action Committee, he was lacking mandatory prerequisite for admission in Engineering College‑‑‑As for eligibility of Diploma‑holders in Engineering, petitioner having not applied on that basis was not entitled for admission on that account‑‑‑Petitioner could not be allowed to take advantage from Diploma in Engineering for Government service and simultaneously use his F.Sc. certificate to have admission in Engineering College and that too, through the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑ ‑Non‑granting of admission to petitioner, thus, did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to call for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. pp. 39, 40, 41 A, B, C & D
PLC(CS) 2004
Civil Review Petition No.268 of 2000 in Civil Petition No.737 of 2000, decided on 28th May, 2004.

2004 PLC (C

Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2004
Civil Review Petition No.268 of 2000 in Civil Petition No.737 of 2000, decided on 28th May. 2004.

2004 S C M R 1315

Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2000
Civil Petition No.4-Q of 1999, decided on 20th June, 2000.

2000 S C M R 1743

KHUDA-I-NAZAR — Petitioner Versus THE CURATOR and another — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 2026
2025-January-30

P L D 2026 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1

SUGHRAN BIBI — Appellant Versus SULTAN MEHMOOD — Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 2005
Writ Petition No. 1514 of 2005, decided on 31st January, 2005.

P L D 2005 Lahore 279

ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
CLC 1995
Constitutional Petition No. 19 of 1994, decided on 17th August, 1994.

1995 C L C 1137

USMAN ENTERPRISES‑‑‑Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE-QUETTA and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Quetta
PLC 1979
Petitions Nos. 222 to 225 of 1977, decided on 18th November 1978.

1979 P L C 269

MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND OTHERS Versus S. A. KARIM COTTON FACTORY, KEHROR PACCA

Court: VIIIth Labour Court Punjab
SCMR 2004
Civil Petition No. 1480 of 2004, decided on 28th June, 2004.

2004 S C M R 1861

REHMAT ULLAH alias RAJA — Petitioner Versus HOME SECRETARY, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
YLR 2003
Writ Petition No.863 of 2000, decided on 14th April, 2003.

2003 Y L R 2042

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Divisional Superintendent, Peshawar — Petitioner Versus SAID MUHAMMAD and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar