False statement

2025 CLD 1478 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10 & 30Deceptive marketing practiceFalse statement

Show cause notice was issued to respondent-establishment for claiming its product as 30% more fuel efficient as compared to all such products available in the market

Respondent-establishment had made its claim on the basis of a report issued by Agriculture Mechanization and Research Institute (AMRI)

Validity

Report of AMRI did not support purported claim of respondent-establishment, as it had used the contents of that report in a deceptive manner

Claim of respondent-establishment was without any reasonable basis

In its correspondence with the Commission, AMRI denied granting certification or approval to respondent-undertaking and had categorically denied issuing any report, finding or information that could support the claim made by respondent-establishment

AMRI explicitly prohibited respondent-establishment from using it's name for publicity of its products and this was a substantial evidence of AMRI's view on actions and claims of respondent-establishment which could mislead the consumers

Report by AMRI compared products of respondent-establishment with that of one competitor only

Such claim of respondent-establishment was inherently defective and misleading and prohibited under S. 10 of Competition Act, 2010

Deceptive claim was carefully crafted with the intention of deceiving ordinary customer into believing that products of respondent-undertakings were superior in terms of fuel efficiency and would result in additional savings for the users

Respondent-establishment tried to create deceptive impression of performance of the product, enticing consumers by promising significant economic benefits that did not actually exist

By presenting such false and misleading information, respondent-undertaking aimed to gain an unfair advantage in the market, misguiding consumers and distorting their purchasing decisions

Such practice not only undermined consumer trust, but also disrupted fair competition within the industry

It was imperative for regulatory bodies to address such deceptive claims to protect consumers and ensure a fair and transparent marketplace

Respondent-undertaking had violated Ss. 10(1) & 10(2)(b) of Competition Act, 2010

Competition Commission directed respondent-establishment to cease and desist from carrying out deceptive marketing practices by suggesting that their products provide up to 30% additional fuel saving as compared to its competitors

Competition Commission further directed respondent-establishment to modify all advertisements and personal material and promotional material, whether through newspaper, TV campaign, in electronic or digital media, social media posts or on their official websites and to display only truthful claims regarding their product

Competition Commission also directed respondent-establishment to file compliance report with respect to implementation of the directions as well as deposit of penalty by not later than 30 days

Show cause notice was disposed of accordingly.

2025 CLD 1276 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Deceptive marketing practiceFalse statementIndustry-wide deceptive market practiceScope

Individual responsibility of an undertaking under law is not exempted by industry-wide deceptive market practices.

2025 CLD 1099 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10(2)(b) & 10(2)(b)Deceptive marketing practiceFalse statementMisleading claim

Show-cause notice was issued to respondent-establishment for making false claims about the housing scheme launched by it

Validity

Respondent-establishment's false claim of being associated with initiatives of Punjab and Federal Government for the provision of low cost housing in Islamabad was likely to attract investors and consumers to invest in the project of respondent-establishment when they might have otherwise considered other competing projects without such a misleading government endorsement

Rather than competing with other similar undertakings on merit, respondent-establishment adopted a strategy to influence consumers' choice by deception regarding government endorsement and geographical location of its project

Respondent-establishment had put itself forward by marketing its project as being sanctioned by government and giving the impression that the same was situated in Islamabad

This might have had the effect of distorting competition within Pakistan because other housing societies marketing similar projects would be at a serious disadvantage and might not able to compete with respondent-establishment as unsuspecting public would believe, understand or perceive respondent-establishments' project to be genuinely backed by government and located in Islamabad

Competition Commission imposed penalty upon respondent-establishment for violation of S. 10(2)(b) of Competition Act, 2010

Competition Commission directed respondent-establishment to inform public-at-large through appropriate clarifications published in two Urdu and two English newspapers giving correct situation regarding location and status of the housing scheme

Show cause notice was disposed of accordingly.

2020 PTD 1095 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(s), 16, 32(1), 156(1)(8)(9)(14), 157 & 178Export Policy Order, 2016, S.17Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-K"Smuggling"False statementGoods not declaredDuring raid some cartoon containing chemical "Ketamine" in powdered form were also among the other goods to be exportedValidity"End-user-Certificate" was required under appendix-D to Export Policy Order, 2016Accused persons submitted the Certificate but it was not mentioned that the exported goods included "Ketamine"

Such fact could not be denied by accused persons and it was a clear case of concealment of fact, submitting false statement and document electronically which was an offence falling within the ambit of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969

Whether "Ketamine" was prohibited goods or narcoticbut legal position was that submission of wrong, false or incorrect document (End-User-Certificate), prima facie accused persons were guilty of commission of an offence under Customs Act, 1969

Trial Court had rightly declined to acquit accused persons in exercise of jurisdiction under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PTD 1045 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 180, 32 & 32ASRO No. 886(I)/2012, dated 18-07-2012Show-cause noticeJurisdictionFalse statementFiscal fraudScope and imported consignment comprising of several kinds of fabric and filed goods declarationAssessing Officer examined the goods and passed assessment ordersInbuilt delegated authority of Customs Computerized System passed clearance order in terms of S. 83, Customs Act, 1969

Appellant approached the terminal operator for delivery of goods who showed his inability to deliver in view of the fact that Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) had blocked the goods declaration

Appellant approached Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) who informed that goods in question seemed to be of Indian origin and re-examination was required

Re-examination was conducted and it revealed the same result as that of earlier assessment order

Despite the very fact Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) detained the consignment, framed contravention report and forwarded the same to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) for issuance of show-cause notice

Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) confiscated the goods and imposed penalty equivalent to the value of goods

Validity

Federal Government through SRO No. 886(I)/2012, dated 18-07-2012 had formed Collectorate of Customs Adjudication for adjudication of cases wherein revenue loss to the exchequer was visible

Present case fell within the domain of Collectorate of Customs Adjudication and contravention report was rightly forwarded by Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) to the Collectorate of Customs Adjudication but Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication), in the present case, laid hands on the exclusive jurisdiction of Collectorate of Customs Adjudication

Said act of Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) tantamounted to transgression which rendered the entire proceedings without jurisdiction, void ab initio and coram non judice.

2016 PTD 1222 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32(1), 32(1)(a) & 32(3)Import of goodsFalse statementMis-declaration and mis-statementScope

Invoking of Ss.32(1) and 32(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1969 by Collector of Customs, Exports was also out of context as spirit and essence of S.32(1) of Customs Act, 1969 was that mis-declaration and mis-statement so made should be conscious and that should inflict injury to exchequer as expressed in Ss.32(2) and 32(3) of Customs Act, 1969 which were to be read in conjunction with S.32(1) of Customs Act, 1969

Mis-declaration/mis-statement so made should be instrumental in monetary gain on the expense of revenue of exchequer

Consignment in question was not subject to payment of any export or regulatory duty nor qualified for payment of duty drawback or refund of Sales Tax, resultantly, no revenue of exchequer was evaded by importer

When there existed no revenue loss, mis-declaration/mis-statement so made was without any significance and no consequences flew out of the same.

2016 PTD 925 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.32(1) & 32(2)Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.11Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.3False statementAssumption of jurisdiction by Customs Authorities in for sales tax and withholding tax mattersScope

In presence of specific provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, assumption of jurisdiction by customs department under Ss.32(1) and 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 for sales tax and withholding tax was void ab-initio and unlawful.

2016 PTD 384 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 32False StatementScope

Contention of importer was that department had invoked S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969 without specifying relevant subsection despite its pre-requisite

Non-mentioning of relevant subsection rendered the show-cause notice vague, defective and not in conformity with law, therefore same had no legal effect.

2016 PTD 22 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32(1), 32(2) & 32AFalse statementShow-cause noticeNature and scope

Mere mentioning of Ss. 32(1), 32(2) & 32-A of Customs Act, 1969, in show-cause notice would not vest adjudicating authority with jurisdiction to invoke S. 32(1), S. 32(2) & 32-A of Customs Act, 1969

Validity of show-cause notice would depend on its context that was facts supported by tangible evidence referred to in show-cause notice and not from cosmetic show-cause of statutory provisions or from use of statutory key words in show-cause notice

Sections 32(1) & 32(2) of Customs Act, 1969, could not be invoked in absence of strong evidence of mens rea and mis-declaration in description, value, quantity, origin etc.

Section 32 of Customs Act, 1969 would be applied where collusion was established and action against delinquent staff/officers had been taken by department.

2013 CLD 58 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 492False statement

Contravention of S.492 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 was not a criminal offence, but contravention of S.492 would attract imposition of penalty by the Commission

Ingredients of criminal offence, need not be established in order to impose penalty under S.492 of Companies Ordinance, 1984, it was sufficient to prove that the contravention was made knowingly.

2013 CLC 1297 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 14(5), 78(3)(d), 82 & 99Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.62 & 63Nomination papersScrutinyDisqualificationCorrupt practiceFalse statementFake educational degreeAcquittal from criminal courtAppellant was aggrieved of rejection of his nomination papers by Returning Officer

Plea raised by appellant was that he had been acquitted by criminal court in the case of holding fake educational degree

Validity

Merely because appellant secured acquittal from criminal court, would not mean that he had become graduate

Criminal court had no power to grant degree or determine whether degree was to be recognized in Pakistan; it was only recognized institution, i.e. Higher Education Commission, which could determine validity or otherwise of a degree

Any person might have attended college or university, which was not recognized by Higher Education Commission, and in such circumstances, such person could not state that paper in his possession was a 'graduation' degree in Pakistan

To hold otherwise would grant criminal courts jurisdiction to determine matter of recognition of degrees, affiliation of colleges/universities, equivalency or otherwise of `degree'

Such were the matters in respect of which criminal courts had no jurisdiction nor they had necessary expertise

Appellant by stating that 'degree' was a degree that was recognized in Pakistan made "false statement" or submitted "false or incorrect declaration" in respect of his "educational qualifications" as stipulated in section 78 (3) (d) of Representation of the People Act, 1976, by making/submitting false declaration in respect of his educational qualifications, and the same amounted to corrupt practice, for which penalty had been provided in S.82 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 and further the offence was cognizable under S.94 of Representation of the People Act, 1976

As determination of Higher Education Commission with regard to validity of degree of appellant stood the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice, therefore, in spite of his acquittal, he was not eligible to participate in elections

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.