PACKAGES LIMITED vs CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss — 2024 PTD 1532 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

PACKAGES LIMITED VS CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss. 32(1), 32(2), 32(3-a), 79, 80 & 156(1), (14)---Sales Tax act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3 & 6---Evasion of duties and taxes, allegation of---Factual controversy---appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, powers of---Scope---Importer was ordered to deposit evaded duties and taxes vide Order-in-Original---applicant (importer) filed Reference application as Order-in-Original was maintained by the appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal')---Validity---appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue is final arbitrator of facts and factual controversies are not ordinarily amenable for adjudication before the High Court in reference jurisdiction---Reference application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PTD 1532 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PACKAGES LIMITED VS CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss. 32(1), 32(2), 32(3-a), 79, 80 & 156(1), (14)---Sales Tax act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3 & 6---Evasion of duties and taxes, allegation of---Factual controversy---appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, powers of---Scope---Importer was ordered to deposit evaded duties and taxes vide Order-in-Original---applicant (importer) filed Reference application as Order-in-Original was maintained by the appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal')---Validity---appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue is final arbitrator of facts and factual controversies are not ordinarily amenable for adjudication before the High Court in reference jurisdiction---Reference application was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PTD 1532 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PACKAGES LIMITED VS CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss. 32(1), 32(2), 32(3-a), 79, 80 & 156(1), (14)---Sales Tax act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3 & 6---Misdeclaration---Duties and taxes, evasion of---Department adjudging evaded duties and taxes on cleared consignments---Past Departmental practice qua wrong benefit extended beyond the law/policy---Scope and effect---Importer / Company was alleged to have of imported and got cleared water based varnishes in the garb of acrylic polymer as items having different PCT Headings attracting different duty rate of 20% and 10% respectively---Importer was ordered to deposit the evaded duties and taxes vide Order-in-Original---applicant (importer) filed Reference application as Order-in-Original was maintained by the appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (' Tribunal')---Contention of the applicant was that previously it had been able to clear identical consignments while paying lower duties and taxes---Validity---Record revealed that the Show-Cause Notice was predicated on data coming into the knowledge of the Respondent / Department and not upon any ruling---It was also apparent from the reply filed by the applicant/importer, to the Notice, that no objection had been taken to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority or the applicability of the provisions of law under which the same was issued---No cavil had been articulated before the High Court to suggest any impropriety in the department adjudication---Therefore, the High Court reformulated the question to be answered, in terms of the verbiage, and the only question arising was "whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the department had due cause to adjudge evaded duties and taxes on cleared consignments of the applicant"---Regarding plea of the applicant with respect to past departmental practice, the Tribunal had specifically addressed that issue and observed that previous treatment of like consignments was "actually based on incorrect and incomplete data provided by the applicant"; the Tribunal further observed that the subsequent scrutiny resulted in identification of the actual composition of the imported item, hence, the determinant classification---No cavil had been articulated by the applicant / importer to the findings with regard to the composition of the imported item (and the sole objection was that the earlier classification ought to have been maintained merely as the same had been done in the past)---There was no unsubstantiated departure in the present case---a wrong benefit, extended beyond the law/policy, may not be perpetuated---Thus, the plea/contention of the applicant / importer was misconceived---Reference application, filed by the importer / company, was dismissed, in circumstances.

PACKAGES LIMITED vs CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss — 2024 PTD 1532 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PTD