COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPEALS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI- vs Messrs
This matter arises from an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs Appeals (Appraisement), Karachi against a judgment of the High Court granting exemption of duty to the respondents. The core legal question was whether a notification granting duty exemption could be applied retrospectively to transactions already completed under a previous notification. The Supreme Court held that the notification dated 10-9-1991 did not possess retrospective effect and could not reopen transactions where the duty had already been cleared under the earlier notification dated 16-5-1991, constituting a past and closed transaction. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The key principle laid down is that administrative notifications granting exemptions cannot be applied retrospectively to past and closed transactions unless expressly stated.
- Whether an exemption notification can be given retrospective effect without explicit terms to that effect?
- Does the clearance of duty under an earlier notification constitute a past and closed transaction preventing subsequent exemption?
- Can a High Court grant duty exemption contrary to the effective date specified in a notification?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- (1) Learned counsel contended that the High Court had granted exemption of duty to the respondents in view of notification, dated 10-9-1991, which was made applicable with effect from 12-9-1991, although the respondents were not entitled for the same because it had no retrospective effect as per its terms as the duty levied had already been cleared by them in pursuance of earlier notification, dated 16-5-1991. Having gone through both the notifications, we are of the opinion that as notification dated 10-9-1991 was not made operative retrospectively, therefore, the respondents were not entitled for exemption particularly when the duty had already been paid by them in pursuance of earlier notification dated 16-5-1991 being a past and closed transaction.
2. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment, dated 31-1- 2002 is set aside. No order as to costs.