THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI vs M.M — 2026 SCMR 652 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2026 SCMR 652 SUPREME-COURT
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 2026
Reporter: SCMR
Parties: THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI vs M.M
Subject matter: Tax & Customs
Provisions referred to: S. 27A---C; Customs Act

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

THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI VS M.M. STEEL, SIALKOT. S.27A---Customs Rules, 2001, R.592---Mutilation of consignment (goods)---Type/Kind of imported goods ("rollers") not identified in relevant list---Scope and effect---Request moved by importer for mutilation of consignment (goods) was turned down vide Order-in-Original on the ground that consignment of "rollers" does not qualify for mutilation under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1969 for not being identified in list given under Rule 592 of Customs Rules, 2001; however, High Court allowed said request---Validity---Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1969 allows mutilation or scrapping of goods as are notified by the Federal Board of Revenue and in the manner as prescribed by Rules, 2001---Only such goods which are found in consonance with said requirement shall be subjected to duty on such rates as may be applicable to the goods as if they had been imported in mutilated form or as scrapped---The list available under Rule 592 of Customs Rules, 2001 is restricted and not inclusive of "any other item" except those identified therein---Rule 592 was subjected to amendments and omissions; however, "rollers" were never identified by the said Rule in any form, whether serviceable or unserviceable---Rule 592 appears to suggest that it is restricted and not inclusive of other items---Supreme Court set aside the impugned order passed by High Court; consequently, the order of rejection for mutilation stood restored---Petition for leave to appeal filed by Collectorate was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR

2026 SCMR 1063 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD IMRAN VS ISHFAQ AHMED. Ss. 12 & 39---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Agreement already cancelled by Court of c…
2026 SCMR 1056 SUPREME-COURTSALAMAT ALI VS State. S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7(e)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Kidnapping…
2026 SCMR 36 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD ASHRAF ANJUM VS SABIR HUSSAIN Ss. 12 & 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 55---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell--…
2026 SCMR 1045 SUPREME-COURTPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Punjab Emergency Service Department, Lahore VS MUHAMMAD KHALIL. Art.260---Service of Pakistan---Meaning…
2026 SCMR 1045 SUPREME-COURTPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Punjab Emergency Service Department, Lahore VS MUHAMMAD KHALIL. S.4(2) [as amended by Punjab Emergency…
2026 SCMR 966 SUPREME-COURTGHULAM ALI VS ALI SHER. Art.185(3)---Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Concurrent findings---Interference. Concurrent findings canno…

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