DIRECTOR through Additional Director of PCA (Law) and Collector of Customs vs R.J

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

DIRECTOR through Additional Director of PCA (Law) and Collector of Customs VS R.J. CORPORATION Ss. 32(1)(c), 79(1)(b) & Fifth Sched., Part-I ,Sr. No. 24---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990 ) Sixth Sched. Table 3, Sr. No. 15(2)---SRO 499(1)/2009 dated 13-06-2009---Letter of FBR dated 12.02.2016---Mis-declaration---Wrong self-assessment by importer, allegation of---Exemption, availing of---Scope--- LED Panel Lights under HS Code 9405.1090---After examination of the said goods it was observed that they were not to be meant to work and operate with the renewable energy sources like Solar Energy or Wind Energy, and they were to be operated on alternate current rather than direct current, and as a consequence the concession was not available---Department filed Reference as Customs Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) set-aside Order-in-Original having been passed against the respondents/importers---Validity---Perusal of the finding of the Tribunal reflected that earlier the respective Collectorates had cleared the subject goods by extending the benefit of the exemption and after releasing of the same it was alleged that the said exemption was not available---It appeared that such proceedings were initiated pursuant to some letter of FBR dated 12.02.2016, wherein, it was clarified that the exemption would only be available where the voltage of LED lights did not exceed 60 Watts---Tribunal had rightly observed that such clarification or finding of FBR in respect of an exemption available under the Customs Act, 1969, came from nowhere, as FBR had no role to play in such matter; and that FBR had no authority either to enhance or restrict an exemption; and that in any case said letter of FBR could not be applied retrospectively on the respondents' goods which were already cleared after accepting the claim of exemption---Pertinently, said adversarial clarification/letter was later on withdrawn on 28.11.2017---Regarding the exemption in question, there was no such restriction as to the limit of watts or voltage of the LED lights in question, whereas, the related department ie. National Energy Conservation Centre and Ministry of Water and Power had also supported the case of the respondents---Even otherwise, the relevant entry in the 5th Schedule provides "following items for promotion of renewable energy technologies for conservation of energy", whereas the applicant /department was of the view that the lights in question were never meant for promotion of renewable energy; however, it had lost sight of the fact that after this the word "OR" had been used which here in the given facts and circumstances was to be read as "and"; hence, applied to all items for promotion of conservation of energy, which made it irrelevant as to whether what was the capacity in watts or voltage; or for that matter whether it was to be used in solar or wind energy, or in AC current or DC current---Thus, the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant/department had no case to rely upon an interpretation given by FBR inasmuch as the same was against the very statute and could not be accepted and therefore the entire case as set-up by the applicant / department including allegations of mis-declaration within the contemplation of S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, had no basis---No justifiable cause with the applicant / department to challenge such finding of the Tribunal was made out---Special Customs Reference, filed by the Department dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

DIRECTOR through Additional Director of PCA (Law) and Collector of Customs vs R.J — 2025 PTD 1693 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD