Checking of goods declaration

2025 PTD 1895 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25, 39, 80 & 81Value of imported goods, determination ofChecking of goods declarationExemption from customs-dutiesAcceptance by Collector of Customs (Appeals)Goods, non-releasing of

Petitioner (a private limited company engaged in the business of sale and import of cosmetic and beauty products) filed constitutional petition for release of its consignment

Assertion of the petitioner at filing of goods declaration was that the same were covered by exemption of tax and duty but assessment resulted in levy of duty and tax

Petitioner filed appeal which had been allowed yet Respondents / Collectorate did not release the imported goods

Validity

Under S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969 officer of customs may determine the amount of customs duty and tax payable on imported and exported goods

Legislation in its own wisdom empowered the Federal Government under S. 39 of the Customs Act, 1969 to exempt the payment of customs duty whenever certain circumstances so existed subject to a few conditions, limitations or restrictions

The Officers of Customs on declaration of goods for assessment are under an obligation to examine the claim of owner of the imported goods seeking exemption in lieu of any SRO issued by the Federal Government under the provisions of S.39 of the Customs Act, 1969

Approach of the Respondents was not correct and they had violated the mandate given to the officers of the customs conferred under Ss. 80 & 81 of the Customs Act, 1969

Since the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has granted the appeal accepting claim of the petitioner to exception in duty and tax, the party aggrieved by the said order, may avail its remedy provided under S.194A of the Customs Act, 1969 by filing an appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal

Thus, detention of the imported goods by the Officers of Customs was beyond the bounds of law, when the owner of imported goods was willing to secure the disputed amount through bank guarantee

High Court directed Respondents to reassess the imported goods of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeal) and to release the goods on payment of admitted amount

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2020 PTD 497 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 209, 32, 79, 80, 83 & 156(1)(9) & (14)Liability of agentMis-declarationDeclaration and assessmentChecking of goods declarationClearance of goodsWrong PCT classificationScopeImport of vehicleGoods declaration was filed through appellant/Customs Clearing AgentVehicle was cleared and importer obtained its possession after realization of leviable duty and taxes

Deputy Collector of Customs, later on, considered that vehicle was assessed under wrong PCT classification and attracted higher rate of duty and taxes; show-cause notice was issued and order-in-original was passed

Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal being barred by time

Validity

Deputy Collector of Customs having passed assessment and clearance orders, could not issue show-cause notice or pass order-in-original against importer's Clearing Agent for the negligence and lapses on his part

No charge of mis-declaration in material particulars was visible from the documents

Order was completely silent with regards to either willful act, negligence or default on the part of the Clearing Agent

Examination and assessment orders had been passed by Customs Officers without any influence of Clearing Agent

Appellate Tribunal annulled the show-cause notice and set aside the orders passed by customs authorities.

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

Ss. 80, 2(a), 4 & 180Import Policy Order, 2013, Appendix-G & para 5(B)(iii) Sr. Nos. 357 & 358,S.R.O. No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-06-2002Import of goods of Indian originChecking of goods declarationAdjudicating AuthorityPowers and duties of officers of CustomsShow-cause noticeScopeAssistant Collector of Customs issued show-cause notice and confiscated appellant's imported goodsValidityCases of goods of Indian origin had to be dealt with by competent authority at the time of passing assessment orderPrincipal Appraiser had the jurisdiction in terms of S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2002, dated 15-06-2002 to adjudicate such cases

Show-cause notice issued by Assistant Collector of Customs was usurpation of the powers of his subordinate, the Principal Appraiser, which he could only exercise under S. 4, Customs Act, 1969, during the course of administrative work and not for the purpose of adjudication

Show-cause notice was held to have been issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction.

2016 PTD 1266 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80, 81(2), 81(4) & 81(5)Checking of goods declarationProvisional assessment of liabilityGoods declaration attaining finalityScope

Final assessment order under Ss. 80 & 81(5) of Customs Act, 1969 should have been passed by officer expressed therein within six months or further extended period of 90 days by Collector of Customs after serving a notice to importer

In the present case, no extension was given under S. 81(2) of Customs Act, 1969 and no such order had been passed, consequent to which declaration of importer stood final in terms of S. 81(4) of Customs Act, 1969.

2016 PTD 1266 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32 & 80Import of goodsS.R.O. No.371(I)/2002 dated 15-6-2002Checking of goods declarationFalse statement and mis-declarationScope

Charge of mis-declaration had been levelled on the importer on basis of specifications given in MTC, which according to department were not as shown therein instead and they could not determine the same through naked eye and a test was desired

Under regime of "One Customs", no duty and taxes were paid in advance, in fact under S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2002 dated 15-06-2002

Under S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969, it was duty of customs officers to determine the exact description, specification, quantity, weight and PCT Heading as the same fell within the ambit of "assessment"

Department was also empowered under S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969 to either accept or reject the claim of exemption and complete the assessment as ascertained by it under respective PCT heading, mentioning or claiming ascertained PCT, under which importer's goods did not fall or could not be construed an act of mis-declaration on the part of importer

During the process of assessment, it was the duty of Assessing Officer not only to examine the goods but also to tally the description, its weight and value of goods thereof and to consider any extra information available on the Bill of Entry in order to arrive at a correct assessment of duty and taxes

To constitute a criminal act an element of mens rea and intentional knowledge was necessary and the offending act must be one in which material particulars had been wrongly given or provided to Customs Authorities

In the present case, in goods declaration all the entries relating to description, quantity and nature of goods were found true and no charge had been framed against importer on such count

Alleging a charge of mis-declaration in such circumstances, particularly on the basis of wrong classification heading did not constitute an offence within the framework of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969 as there was no material falsity in the statement made by importer

Appeals were allowed, accordingly.