Citation Name: 2023 PTD 1801 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case TEST INTERNATIONAL vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTA

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PTD 1801 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case TEST INTERNATIONAL VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division / Chairman FBR, Islamabad Ss. 79, 81, & 193---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Declaration / assessment of imported goods, correctness of---Provisional determination of liability---Final determination not completed within stipulated period---Consequences---Differential amount paid or bank guarantee secured, return of---Scope---While final determination was not completed within six months, appropriate officer passed the impugned final assessment order by holding that the amount determined through provisional assessment order had become final and as a result thereof, the security instrument i.e. bank guarantee for differential amount should be encashed---Petitioner / importer assailed impugned order passed by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Objection of the respondents / department was that impugned order could be challenged before the next higher forum in terms of S.193 of the Customs Act, 1969 (' the Act, 1969')---Validity---Section 193 of the Act, 1969 had provided specifically that an order passed by any officer of the Customs Department under different provisions of the Act, 1969 was appealable---Section 81 of the Act, 1969 did not figure in the said order which were appealable before the next higher forum---Indeed, appeal was a creation of statute and in absence of any provision of law envisaging for filing appeal against an order, the appeal could not be entertained by the upper forum as a matter of course---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the appropriate officer, declaring that her findings were not based on correct appreciation of subsection (4) of S. 81 of the Act, 1969 and directed the respondents / department to return the bank guarantee through which the differential amount was secured from the petitioner / importer---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PTD 1801 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case TEST INTERNATIONAL VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division / Chairman FBR, Islamabad Ss.25, 79 & 81---SRO 499(I)/2013 dated 12-06-2013---Value of goods---Declaration---Assessment of imported goods, correctness of---Provisional determination of liability---Final determination not completed within stipulated period---Consequences---Differential amount paid or bank guarantee secured, return of---Scope---While final determination was not completed within six months, appropriate officer passed the impugned final assessment order by holding that the amount determined through provisional assessment order had become final and as a result thereof , the security instrument i.e. bank guarantee for differential amount should be encashed---Petitioner / importer assailed impugned order passed by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Validity---Though the appropriate officer, had herself admitted her failure to complete the final determination within six months, but her approach was not in consonance with the purpose, mandate and language of S. 81(4) of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act 1969'); she, while passing the impugned order, was probably misled by the explanation; as at the end S. 81 of the Act, it was explained that the provincial assessment meant the amount of duties and taxes paid or secured against bank guarantee, however, the provisional determination of the duty as provided under subsection (1) of S. 81 of the Act, 1969, did not include the additional amount determined on the basis of provisional assessment and the said differential amount was indeed a speculated amount of duty which could ultimately be the actual amount of duty , taxes and other charges after a complete probe and inquiry leading to the final determination of duties / taxes etc.---It was only when there was actual final determination within the stipulated period that the additional amount was relevant and was adjustable in terms of subsection (3) of S. 81 of the Act, 1969---Said differential amount secured through bank guarantee in terms of S. 81(1) of the Act, 1969 was not part of provisional determination, therefore, when the appropriate officer failed to pass an order of final determination as per inquiry envisaged under the enabling provision of S. 81 of the Act, 1969 , then the amount only determined as a provisional assessment would be deemed as a final determination and as a consequence thereof, the differential amount if already paid, would be refunded or if it was secured through an instrument (pay-order / bank guarantee) the same would be returned to the importer---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Appropriate Officer, declaring that her findings were not based on correct appreciation of subsection (4) of S.81 of the Act 1969 and directed the respondents / Department to return the bank guarantee through which the differential amount was secured from the petitioner / importer---Constitutional petition filed by the importer was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PTD 1801 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case TEST INTERNATIONAL vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division / Chairman FBR, Islamabad Ss — 2023 PTD 1801 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD