SURFACTANT CHEMICALS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad S — 2025 PTD 1023 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2025 PTD 1023 SUPREME-COURT
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 2025
Reporter: PTD
Parties: SURFACTANT CHEMICALS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad S
Provisions referred to: S. 19---N

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

Judgment text as reported

SURFACTANT CHEMICALS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad S. 19---Notification S.R.O. 565(I)/ 2006, dated 05-06-2006 and S.R.O 474(I)/2016, dated 24-06-2016---Customs duty---Exemption---Duty in excess of zero percent---Applicability---Petitioner/importer was aggrieved of imposition of import duty on chemical imported---Validity---Treatment of goods disclosed in S.R.O. 565(I)/2006, dated 05-06-2006 were subject to fulfillment of certain obligations---Amended S.R.O. 474(I)/2016, dated 24-06-2016 itself put petitioner/importer under obligations to provide its qualification in order to fectch exemption which was only available for manufacturing or formulation of agricultural pesticides by manufacturers and formulators and that could only be recognized and approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research---Column (2) of S.R.O. had restricted and prescribed a condition and treatment of goods of column (3) in terms of exemption of customs duty could only be if condition prescribed in Column (2) was met---Petitioner/importer was neither recognized nor approved by the Ministry of National Food Security and Research either as manufacturer or formulator of Agricultural pesticides---If petitioner/importer had chosen to protect any such alleged right which claimed to have been violated by the S.R.O., the petitioner/importer was at liberty and if any such right was exercised, it should be dealt with in accordance with the law, and permission as such was not required---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD

2025 PTD 260 SUPREME-COURTADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF APPRAISEMENT (WEST), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI VS K.S. SULEMANJI ESMAILJI AND SON…
2025 PTD 231 SUPREME-COURTAHMAD SIKANDER VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, AEOI ZONE, LAHORE Ss. 111(1)(b) & 122(9)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review petiti…
2025 PTD 556 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTRED CO. ENTERPRISES VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Fiscal laws---Charging provision---Interpretation---Tax can be levied only under t…
2025 PTD 313 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREMrs. SHEHLA TARIQ SAIGOL VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance Powers of appellate Court---Scope---appeal is continuation of s…
2025 PTD 274 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREMUHAMMAD ZUBAIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss. 131(5) & 131(10)---Grant of stay by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal')---Impositio…
2025 PTD 1609 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHFAZLEE SONS (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss. 2(68), 74, 177(1), 214C & Second Schedule, Pt. IV, Clause (105A)---Audit proceedings,…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English