Messrs APPOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, APPRAISEMENT, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI, 2005 PTD-KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH 1966 (2005)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 19 & 31-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---S.R.O. 554(I)/98 dated 12-6-1998---Constitutional petition---Stipulation made in the S.R.O. as regards the cut off date of import, for availing its benefit having not been met by the importer, irrespective of the fact whether delay in arrival of the consignment had occasioned due to the fault of the importer or otherwise, the importer was not entitled to the benefit of S.R.O. 554(I)/98 dated 12-6-1998, but by virtue of S.31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, he was liable to pay duty at the rate prevalent at the relevant time.

M.Y. Electronics v. Federation of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1404 and Fecto Belarus Tractors Ltd. v. Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and Economics Affairs 2001 PTD 1829 distinguished.

Karim Ghee Oil Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2005 PTD 634 and Nishat Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2005 PTD 495 fol.

Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for Petitioner.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.

ORDER

By this Constitutional petition, petitioner Messrs Appollo Textile Mills Limited have challenged the action of respondents for not allowing them the benefit of S.R.O. No.554(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998 over their imported consignment, which has arrived at the Port of Karachi in the month of April, 2005.

2. Succinctly, case of the petitioner is that L.C. for import of disputed consignment and other required formalities of the above referred S.R.O. were fulfilled by them within the stipulated period i.e. 12th June, 2004, however, for no fault of the petitioner their consignment has arrived at the Port of Karachi subsequent to the cut of date i.e. 31st March, 2005 provided in the S.R.O. for availing its benefit. In such circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel is that as the S.R.O. No.554(I)/98, issued by the Government is in furtherance to its policy/scheme of economic reforms, which was introduced for the benefit of importers, therefore, the petitioner, despite arrival of their consignment at the Port of Karachi after 31st March, 2005 as provided under the S.R.O., are entitled for its benefits. To fortify this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of M.Y. Electronics v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 SCMR 1404) and the case of Fecto Belarus Tractors Ltd. v. Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and Economics Affairs (2001 PTD 1829).

3. In reply to the above contention, Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent, has placed reliance on two recent judgments of this Court reported as Karim Ghee Oil Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 PTD 634) and Nishat Mills v. Federation of Pakistan (2005 PTD 495), wherein, according to the learned counsel, the question of benefit of same S.R.O. was considered with reference to the cases cited by Mr. Siddiqui and similar plea raised by the importers was repelled.

4. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record, as well as the cases cited at the bar.

5. Indeed, from time to time several steps have been taken by the Government to give incentives to the importers for promotion of business and trade activities in the country, and S.R.O. No.554(I)/98 may also be considered as a step towards the same goal, but in our view for availing its benefit, strict compliance of all its terms and conditions, is condition precedent and no relaxation can be shown for that purpose. In the present case admittedly stipulation made in the S.R.O. as regards the cut of date of import, for availing its benefit, has not been met by the petitioner, as the disputed consignment of the petitioner has arrived at the Port of Karachi on 27-4-2005 and Bill of Entry has been submitted on 2-5-2005. In such circumstances, irrespective of the fact whether delay in arrival of disputed consignment has occasioned due to the fault of the petitioner or otherwise, the petitioner are not only not entitled for the benefit of S.R.O. referred above, but by virtue of section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969 they are liable to pay duty at the rate prevalent at the relevant time.

6. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, as discussed above, reference to the judgments in the case of Messrs M.Y. Electronics and Fecto Belarus Tractors (Supra), which are based on different premises, is also of no help to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine along with listed-application.

M.B.A./A-198/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.