SURFACTANT CHEMICALS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad S — 2025 SCMR 1096 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2025 SCMR 1096 SUPREME-COURT
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 2025
Reporter: SCMR
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(I0/2016, 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 SCMR

2025 SCMR 1591 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD IJAZ VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Not participating in funeral of wife---Ac…
2025 SCMR 1591 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD IJAZ VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Promptly lodgment of FIR---Accused was alleged to have committed…
2025 SCMR 1742 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly we…
2025 SCMR 1730 SUPREME-COURTFARMAN ALI VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond the shadow of any slightest doubt and the b…
2025 SCMR 1580 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD BILAL VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Medical evidence not supporting the ocular account---Accused was…
2025 SCMR 1558 SUPREME-COURTOBAIDULLAH VS State Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance should be linked with each othe…

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