ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FAISALABAD vs FATIMA ENTERPRISES, MULTAN Ss

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

ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FAISALABAD VS FATIMA ENTERPRISES, MULTAN Ss. 74, 179 & 224---Extension of time limit---Board of Revenue---Jurisdiction---Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal in favour of respondent / importer that time limits imposed by section 179(3) of Customs Act, 1969, were breached and extension in time granted by Federal Board of Revenue under section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969---Validity---There is difference between a power of extension to allow doing of requisite act or thing within an "appropriate" time period on the one hand, and a power to extend a time-limit in "exceptional circumstances" on the other---Latter expression is more restricted than the former term---Power of the Board to grant an extension under section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969, is much narrower and more circumscribed---Provision of section 74 of Customs Act, 1969, is a general provision, applying to "any" act or thing required to be done within a specified timeframe, whereas section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969, moves within a much more circumscribed locus, relatable only to matters of adjudication within the four corners of the section itself---Power to extend a time-limit under section 179(4) of Customs Act, 1969, must be understood and applied while keeping in mind that timelines set out in section 179(3) of Customs Act, 1969, are mandatory and not directory---There was nothing on record that could indicate that there was a proper (or, indeed, any) consideration of the factors involved---Extension granted by the Board was an unlawful exercise of power conferred---Supreme Court was not persuaded from involving of large amount of taxes and duties, as if such a large amount was at stake it behooved the Collector to act speedily and had made his order in a timely manner, if that did not happen, then it was for the State to bear the burden and consequences of such tardiness---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FAISALABAD vs FATIMA ENTERPRISES, MULTAN Ss — 2025 SCMR 1929 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR