Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.25‑B‑‑‑S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, dated 30‑6‑1988‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Vires of S.25‑B Customs Act, 1969 and S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, dated 30‑6‑1988‑‑Provisions contained in S.25‑B, Customs Act, 1969 and S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, dated 30‑6‑1988 and the valuation made thereunder were valid and legal‑‑ Constitutional petition was dismissed.  

Collector of Customs v. New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 1994 SC 363; Messrs Madina Traders v. The Federation of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 95 and Tajuddin Trading Company v. Controller of Customs Valuation and others in Constitutional Petition No. D‑1748 of 1992 fol.

Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Petitioner.

Sirajul Haq and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Sajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

ORDER

Through this petition, it is, inter alia, prayed that S.R.O. 610(I)/88, dated 30‑6‑1988 be declared as illegal, void and without lawful authority:

At the outset, Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah, learned Standing Counsel stated that the Supreme Court had declared the provision contained in section 25‑B of Customs Act, aforementioned S.R.O. and the valuation made in pursuance thereof valid and legal. In support of his contention he referred us to the case of Collector of Customs v. New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. reported in PLD 1994 SC 363 and the case of Messrs Madina Traders v. The Federation of Pakistan, reported in 1999 SCMR 95. He submitted that following the ratio in the above cited case of Collector of Customs, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed a Constitutional Petition No. D‑1748 of 1992 (Tajuddin Trading Company v. Controller of Customs Valuation and others) in which the issues involved were identical to those as are involved in this petition. While producing a copy of the said order, he requested that this petition may be decided in the same terms.

Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, learned counsel for the petitioner did not controvert the above factual aspect and conceded that this petition be also decided in the same terms in which the aforesaid Constitutional Petition was decided.

We have gone through the order, dated 14‑2‑2003 passed in C.P. No. D‑1748 of 1992, the operative part whereof is reproduced as follows:‑‑

"A perusal of the above cited judgment shows that the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the provisions contained in section 258, the S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, dated 30‑6‑1988 and the valuation made in pursuance thereof are valid and legal.

Respectfully following the ratio of the above judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is held that the petition is without substance, which stands dismissed accordingly."

In view of above this petition is dismissed along with listed application.

C.M.A./N‑43/KPetition dismissed.