RAFIQ & CO. through Managing Partner VS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD
2004 P T D 1991
[Karachi High Court]
Before Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, C.J. and Ghulam Rabbani, J
RAFIQ & CO. through Managing Partner
Versus
CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others
C. P. No.D‑3378 of 1993, decided on /01/.
th
March, 2004. Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑Ss. 18 & 19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Tyres imported for use of agricultural tractors‑‑‑ Release of such tyres free of customs duty, claim for‑‑‑Plea of department was that such tyres could not be mounted on any of the four kinds of tractors in use in Pakistan‑‑‑Such issue stood already decided by High Court of another Province‑‑‑High Court accepted Constitutional petition and remanded case to Adjudicating Officer for its decision to accordance with such earlier decision of High Court within specified time.
Customs Appeal No.43 of 1998 fol.
Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.
Nadeem Azhar, D.A.‑G. and Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 2004.
JUDGMENT
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J.‑‑‑The grievance of the petitioners which led them to file this Constitutional petition was the inaction on the part of the respondents to decide the Show‑Cause Notice issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why action against them be not taken for violation of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 punishable under clause 14 of section 156(1) of the customs Act, 1969. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though reply to the Show‑Cause Notice was submitted vide letter, dated 12‑8‑1993 but no action was taken in the matter till December, 1993 and the petitioners had to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for redress of their grievance.
The dispute is with regard to the classification of the tyres imported by the petitioners, which according to the petitioners were to be used for agricultural purposes as these tyres were meant for tractors. The contention of the petitioners was not accepted by the respondents as they observed that the tyres in question could not be mounted on any of the four (4) kinds of tractors in use in Pakistan and in the garb of agricultural use of the tyres the petitioners wanted to take unjust and illegal benefit.
Mr. Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate for the petitioners has produced a Photostat copy of the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10‑9‑2001 in Customs Appeal No.43 of 1998 wherein exactly similar issue was involved as importer therein had imported tyres and tubes of sizes 23‑1‑26 and 28L‑26 for agricultural tractors but the Customs Department observed that they could not be mounted on any of the four (4) kinds of tractors normally in use in Pakistan for agricultural purposes and were imported for non‑agricultural purpose. The Lahore High Court after taking into consideration all the material facts and the principle of interpretation of fiscal statute concluded that the benefit/ concession claimed by the importer therein was available to him and disposed of the appeal in the following terms: ‑‑
(8)Therefore, we will allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The consignment imported by the appellant shall be processed in terms of bill of entry and the declaration made therein for its release free of customs duty and sales tax in terms of the S.R.Os. referred to above.
As the issue involved in this Constitutional petition stands decided by the Lahore High Court, we remand this case to respondent No.3/Adjudicating Officer/appropriate competent authority who will decide the matter in accordance with the judgment of the Lahore High Court referred to above. The needful is to be done within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date this order is brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Officer. This Constitutional petition stands disposed of on above terms.
S.A.K./R‑8/KCase remanded.