COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF EXPORT vs ISLAND TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED R

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

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF EXPORT VS ISLAND TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED R. 307-a(2)(d)---SRO 450(I)/2001 dated 18.06.2001---Unaccounted for un-exported goods---SRO 450(I)/2001 dated 18.06.2001 ('the SRO 450'), benefit of---Scope---Duty and Tax Remission (DTRE), facility of---Scope----Department filed Reference against the order passed by the Customs appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal')---Submission of the applicant / department was that the respondent (Textile Mill/Factory) had failed to report the incident of fire within time; hence, was not entitled for the benefit of the duty and tax remission---Plea of the respondent was that the incident of fire and damage to the factory was an admitted fact, whereas, the insurance claim was also settled in favour of the petitioner, hence the respondent was entitled for remission of duty and taxes applicable on the damaged goods---Validity---Incident of fire on the relevant dates was not disputed, and the Tribunal had observed that once it had come on record that the goods were destroyed due to fire, then benefit of Rule 307a(2)(d) ought to have been granted---In terms of SRO 450 a person who has been granted the facility of duty and tax remission (DTRE) has to account for all of such goods on which such benefit has been granted, whereas, under this rule the unaccounted goods are dealt with and R. 307a(2) deals with the permission of the Regulatory Collector for disposal of such goods within the prescribed utilization period and Cl. (d) thereof permits destruction of such goods after approval of the Regulatory Collector if the said goods are not fit for consumption or sale---Goods-in-question were, admittedly, never fit for consumption, once they were destroyed in the fire---Regulatory authority ought to have exercised the discretion conferred upon under the said Rule, as the law permits remission of duty and taxes, whereas, the present case was of an exceptional nature when in December, 2007, an incident happened and the respondent's factory including various other factories were destroyed in riots---Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was correct in law and ought not to be interfered with as no cogent reasons had been assigned by the authorities below for refusing to exercise such discretion---Question proposed was answered against the applicant and in favour of the respondent---Reference application filed by the Department was dismissed, in circumstances.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF EXPORT vs ISLAND TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED R — 2025 PTD 133 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD