Regulatory duty

2023 PTD 1415 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.18 & 30Goods dutiableRegulatory dutyDate of determination of rate of import dutyScopePetitioners claimed entitlement to benefit under SRO 806(I)/2022, dated 20-06-2022Validity

Federal Government had imposed 10% regulatory duty on import of motor spirit vide SRO 806(I)/2022, dated 20-06-2022 subject to the condition that the duty shall not be levied on cargoes for which Letter of Credit had been established before the effective date i.e. 20-06-2022 or carrier vessels of which were in high seas before promulgation of SRO 806(I)/2022

SRO 806(I)/2022, dated 20-06-2022 was a protection to those transactions which were already at the verge of being materialized i.e. either Letter of Credits had been established or in relation to which "commercial transaction" the goods were in the high seas carrying cargos for the importer

Two limbs of SRO 806(I)/2022 were not completely isolated i.e. for a cargo in the high seas it had to be established that they were on the way to discharge their cargo for consignee and not waiting for a call from any potential buyer as these kind of cargo vessels were invariably available at high seas for a prompt response to any commercial call

Petitioners' Letter of Credits were not opened prior to 20-06-2022 and presence of vessel at high sea did not demonstrate that it was there for the petitioners on account of some commercial transaction recognized by law

Petitioners were not entitled to the protection and benefit under SRO 806(I)/2022

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 PTD 1706 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.18 & 18-CNotification S.R.O. No.659(I)/2007, dated 30-06-2007 & S.R.O. No. 568(I)/2014, dated 26-06-2014Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Intra-court AppealRegulatory dutyLevy and charge ofVires of notification

Respondent was importer of cellular mobile phones to be imported free of customs duty on basis of Notification S.R.O. No.659(I)/2007, dated 30-06-2007 issued in pursuance of Free Trade Agreement between Pakistan and China

Respondent assailed charge of regulatory duty under Notification SRO No.568(I)/2014, dated 26-06-2014 on grounds that same was ultra vires the law

Single Judge of High Court declared notification S.R.O. No.568(I)/2014, dated 26-06-2014 as ultra vires to law and held Free Trade Agreement to be offshoot of General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT)

Validity

Neither violation of any mandatory rule was pleaded before the single Judge of High Court nor it was admitted at appellate stage

To hold any notification as ultra vires it was imperative that violation of rules of business was claimed, pleaded and examined by Court and upon finding of fact that mandatory rule was violated, necessary consequence would be a declaration that such notification was ultra vires

Provisions of Notification S.R.O. No.568(I)/2014, dated 26-06-2014 was not examined or adjudicated on such touchstone therefore, it could not be held as ultra vires by mere placing of reliance by respondents at appellate stage

Exemptions granted through Notification S.R.O. No.659(I)/2007, dated 30-06-2007 was of statutory/standard duty levied under S. 18(1) of Customs Act, 1969 only and not from duty levied through Notification S.R.O. No. 568(I)/2014, dated 26-06-2014 issued under S. 18(3) of Customs Act, 1969

Despite grant of exemptions through Notification S.R.O. No.659(I)/2007, dated 30-06-2007 in terms of Free Trade Agreement, Federal Government was competent to impose regulatory duty on goods falling under Free Trade Agreement

Exemption agreed to be granted under Free Trade Agreement was subject to consequential legislations as well as conditions mentioned in exempting Notification S.R.O. No. 659(I)/2007, dated 30-06-2007

Free Trade Agreement was not offshoot of GATT therefore, provisions of S. 18(5) of Customs Act, 1969 did not apply

Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment passed by the Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2016 PTD 78 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.18DLevy of fee and service chargesRegulatory dutyScopeRegulatory duty imposed by Federal GovernmentValidity

Regulatory duty which was imposed by government on 7-4-1986 and reduced on 17-4-1986 vide two notifications dated 7-4-1986 and 17-4-1986 respectively did not amount to a confiscatory levy

Appeal was dismissed.