Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.19(3) [as inserted by Customs (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 2002)]‑‑‑Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992), Preamble‑‑ Exemption from duty‑‑‑Provision of S.19(3)‑, . Customs Act, 1969 provides that no exemption premised on the ground of promissory estoppel and notwithstanding anything contained in the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 or any other law or any judgment of a Court could be obtained.

Fecto Belarus Tractors v. Pakistan PLD 2002 SC 208 distinguished.

Rana M. Shamim for Petitioner

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No.1.

Faisal Arab, Standing Counsel, for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 24th December, 2004.

JUDGMENT

SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑The petitioner had imported some air jet looms for installation in their textile mills, which, at the time of establishment of the Letters of Credit, were exempt from customs duty in excess of 5% ad valorem in terms of S.R.O. 369(1)/00, dated 17‑6‑2000. However, when the goods arrived in Karachi and the petitioner filed bill of entry on 13‑7‑2001, the exemption had been withdrawn in terms of S.R.O. 439(1)/2001, dated 18‑6‑2001. It was contended that a vested right had been created in favour of the petitioner which was protected by section 6 of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 and, therefore, notwithstanding anything contained in section 31A of the Customs Act, the petitioner continued to remain entitled to the benefit of exemption and the respondents were estopped from taking a measure to the contrary. Reliance was placed on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fecto Belarus Tractors v. Pakistan (PLD 2002 SC 208).

Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, pointed out that after the pronouncement of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court section 19(3) was inserted in the Customs Act to explicitly provide that no exemption premised on the ground of promissory estoppel and. notwithstanding anything contained in the Protection of Economic Reforms Act or any other law or any judgment of a Court could be obtained. He also referred to a very recent judgment of this Bench, dated 23‑11‑2004, where a number of petitions were disposed of on the above grounds.

After going through the above judgment Mr. Rana M. Shamim, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly conceded that in view of the same it was not possible for him to urge otherwise. Nevertheless he wished to reserve his right to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which, indeed, he is entitled to do.

For the above reasons the petition along with the listed application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.B.A./S‑80/K Petition dismissed