Customs Duty

Amended S.R.O. 474(I0/2016, dated 24-06-2016 itself put petitioner/importer under obligations to provide its qualification in order to fectch exemption which was only available for manufacturing or formulation of agricultural pesticides by manufacturers and formulators and that could only be recognized and approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research

Column (2) of S.R.O. had restricted and prescribed a condition and treatment of goods of column (3) in terms of exemption of customs duty could only be if condition prescribed in Column (2) was met

Petitioner/importer was neither recognized nor approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research either as manufacturer or formulator of Agricultural pesticides

If petitioner/importer had chosen to protect any such alleged right which claimed to have been violated by the S.R.O., the petitioner/importer was at liberty and if any such right was exercised, it should be dealt with in accordance with the law, and permission as such was not required

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Amended S.R.O. 474(I)/2016, dated 24-06-2016 itself put petitioner/importer under obligations to provide its qualification in order to fectch exemption which was only available for manufacturing or formulation of agricultural pesticides by manufacturers and formulators and that could only be recognized and approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research

Column (2) of S.R.O. had restricted and prescribed a condition and treatment of goods of column (3) in terms of exemption of customs duty could only be if condition prescribed in Column (2) was met

Petitioner/importer was neither recognized nor approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research either as manufacturer or formulator of Agricultural pesticides

If petitioner/importer had chosen to protect any such alleged right which claimed to have been violated by the S.R.O., the petitioner/importer was at liberty and if any such right was exercised, it should be dealt with in accordance with the law, and permission as such was not required

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Importer seeking exemption from customs duty under SRO No.1284(I)/90, dated 13.12.1990 which provided exemption on consignments to be imported on or after 1.12.1990

Question as to what was the effective date when the goods were imported in Pakistan for the purposes of claiming benefit under the SRO

Admittedly the consignments were unloaded at the port much before the date of SRO No.1284(I)/90, dated 13.12.1990 and merely because at the request of the importer , the goods were placed in ex-bond, benefit of any SRO could not be extended in view of clear language of the said SRO

Under the Customs Act, 1969 duties were levied the moment goods were imported into Pakistan

Ex-bond bill of entry was filed on 18.11.1990, before the issuance of notification of SRO and also before 1.12.1990, therefore, the importer could not claim benefit under the SRO

For claiming the benefit under SRO, the crucial date was the date when the bill of entry was submitted and not the date when the goods crossed Customs barriers

Importer was rightly denied the benefit of SRO

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Plea raised by petitioner was that air conditioners imported by him were covered under Solar Air Conditioning System as provided under the Notification SRO 575(I)/2006, dated 5-6-2006

Validity

Hybrid solar air conditioning system imported by petitioner did not pass the criteria posed at Sr.No.35(4) of the Solar Air Conditioning System as envisaged by Notification SRO 575 (I)/2006, dated 5-6-2006, which aimed dedicated (even if not fully dedicated) use of alternate energy for air conditioning systems wherein main reliance was not placed on the use of conventional electricity rather on alternate modes like solar

No intention existed to the effect that such air conditioning systems could not at all use electricity but not to the extent that electricity was so used by the present air conditioners where actual cooling was done by powering the compressors by electrical means and mere fractional power was provided by solar means and that too only when the sun was shining to its fullest

Petitioner failed to make any case that hybrid solar air conditioners imported by him could be given exemptions provided for in the Notification SRO 575 (I)/2006, dated 5-6-2006

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.