MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI, 2010 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 313 (2009)

(On appeal from the order, dated 17-3-2009 passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Special Customs Reference Application No. 190 of 2006).

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 196---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Imported goods---Description---Scope---Grievance of importer was that goods imported fell within PTC Heading 8419-5090 chargeable to customs duty at 10% but authorities applied PTC Heading 8419-5010 and charged customs duty at the rate of 35%---Validity---Goods imported were shaped like "Shell" as well as "Tube", therefore, it did not appeal to a prudent mind to like the same out from description "Shell or Tube type" and put under description "other" not akin to relevant description---Adjudicating officer had correctly classified imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.54010, so also the Customs Appellate Tribunal---High Court rightly dismissed appeal and reference of importer---Concurrent findings recorded by courts below were unexceptionable---Leave to appeal was refused.

Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 28th July, 2009.

JUDGMENT

GHULAM RABBANI, J.---The petitioner had imported two consignments consisting of Radiation Recuperator Equipment claiming that the imported goods fell under PCT Heading 8419.5090 chargeable to customs duty at 10%. The available Shed staff, on first examination, declared the goods chargeable to same customs duty under a different PCT Heading 8419.8990. On further examination in the light of Manufacturer's Catalogue the classification of imported goods was declared under PCT Heading 8419.5010 chargeable to 35% customs duty which the petitioner paid under protest. Later, the petitioner filed a refund claim which ultimately, came up before the Collector of Customs (Appraisement), who observed that the goods were essentially a shell type Recuperator equipped with cylindrical tube bundles, therefore, they were rightly made chargeable to customs duty at 35% vide order-in- original dated 13-5-2005. Petitioner preferred thereagainst an appeal which was dismissed by Customs Appellate Tribunal under order, dated 5-4-2006. Feeling aggrieved petitioner made a customs reference application under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 that, too, was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh vide order, dated 17-3-2009 against which the petitioner has, now, sought leave to appeal.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that under Heading 8419.5010 classifiable as "Shell or Tube type" only those goods would fall which were shaped either like a "shell" or "Tube" type and not those which were shaped like "Shell and Tube" both. According to him the Radiation Recuperator imported by the petitioner was like "Shell and Tube", therefore, the same fell under the description of "other" chargeable to 15% duty under PCT Heading $419.5090. Learned counsel contended that the Customs Appellate Tribunal and learned Division Bench of High Court, as well, did not apply their judicial mind and failed to appreciate the factual and legal position correctly.

3. We have given due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and with his assistance we have examined the record made available before us. Learned counsel for petitioner has admitted that the goods imported by petitioner were shaped like Shell as well as Tube, therefore, it does not appeal to a prudent mind to take, the same out from description "Shell or 'rube type" and put it under description "other" not akin to relevant description. We, therefore, do not fell persuaded to agree to the proposition advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. The Adjudicating Officer had correctly classified the imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.5010. So also, the Customs Appellate Tribunal and learned Division Bench of High Court rightly dismissed the appeal and the Customs Reference of petitioner. The concurrent findings, seen in the above perspective, are unexceptionable. This petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed accordingly. Leave refused.

M.H./M-113/SCPetition dismissed.