YOUNAS GROUP OF INDUSTRIES through Proprietor VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SAMBRIAL, SIALKOT, 2009 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1835 (2009)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss.20, 25 & 26---S.R.O. 410, dated 18-6-2001---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Import of goods---Application for concession of customs duty---Issuance of notice to importer regarding recovery of outstanding amount---Petitioner imported one consignment and for the clearance of the same filed bill of entry and also applied for the concession of customs duty in terms of S.R.O. 410, dated 18-6-2001---Post dated cheque amounting to Rs.8,56,000 along with indemnity bond in connection with duty and taxes of the consignment was also duly furnished by the importer according to the condition of said S.R.O.---Subsequently importer/petitioner received a notice, whereby a demand of Rs.150533 was made---Impugned notice for recovery, did not contain any detail regarding the amount outstanding against the petitioner, he, in response to said notice, requested the department to recall the same as nothing was outstanding against him---Notice, however, had not been withdrawn, which according to the petitioner, was tantamount to perpetuating an illegality---Very essence of any notice, was to enable any person affected thereby to know the particulars of the amount mentioned in the notice---In the present case, the basis of such outstanding amount was not known to the petitioner and he was in no position, either to respond to the said notice or to have resort to other legal remedies available to him under the law---Constitutional petition was allowed and notice issued to the petitioner was declared to be illegal with the direction to the department to supply the necessary particulars of the amount outstanding against the petitioner by means of a fresh notice according to law---Till the needful was accomplished by the department, the recovery of the amount in question, would continue to be without any lawful authority.

Muhammad Akram Nizami for Petitioner.

Miss Kausar Parveen for Respondent.

ORDER

IRFAN QADIR, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner imported one consignment and for the clearance of the same filed bill of entry bearing No.3415, dated 10-6-2003 and also applied for the concession of customs duty in terms of S.R.O.410, dated 18-6-2001. He further contends that postdated cheque amounting to Rs.8,56,000 along with indemnity bond, in connection with duty and taxes of the consignment was duly furnished according to the condition of said S.R.O. The petitioner was required to export the consignment within a period of one year from the date of its importation. Clause 2 of S.R.O.410 also suggests that the period of export can be extended for further 6 months on payment of 1% surcharge of C&F value of the imported goods in case the same are not exported within the stipulated time. The petitioner submitted the postdated Cheques Nos.876 and 976 dated 19-6-2009 and accordingly the amount of Rs.854213 was deposited in the national treasury. Subsequently the petitioner received a notice, dated 16-2-2009 whereby a demand of Rs.150533 was made. As the impugned notice of recovery, did not contain any detail regarding the amount outstanding against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner in response to the said notice vide letter, dated 23-2-2009 requested the department to recall the same as there was nothing outstanding against the petitioner. However the notice has not been withdrawn which according to the learned counsel is tantamount to perpetuating an illegality.

2. Learned counsel for department contends that the impugned notice for recovery is within the four corners of law and the same calls for no interference at this stage.

3. After hearing the counsel for the parties I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very essence of any notice is to enable any person affected thereby to know the particulars of the amount mentioned in the notice. In the instant case the basis of such outstanding amount is not known to the petitioner and he is in no position either to respond to the said notice or to have resort to other legal remedies available to him under the law. In this view of the matter I am inclined to allow this writ petition and declare the impugned notice to be illegal with the direction to the department to supply the necessary particulars of the amount outstanding against the petitioner by means of a fresh notice according to law. Till the needful is accomplished by the department, the recovery of the amount in question in the absence of a valid legal notice shall continue to remain devoid of any lawful authority.

H.B.T./Y-5/LPetition allowed.