Pakistan Case Law
2009 PTD 1127

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM, KARACHI. vs Messrs

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2009 PTD 1127
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Special Customs Reference Application No.66 of 2008
Date2009-04-17
Judge(s)Muhammad Athar Saeed and Salman Talibuddin
ResultCase remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This Special Customs Reference Application challenges an order passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question addressed is whether a Member Technical sitting singly is competent to decide an appeal involving questions of law. The Sindh High Court examined the impugned order and held that since the matter involved questions of law, the appeal could not be lawfully decided by a Member Technical sitting singly, following the precedent in Collector of Customs v. Muzammil Ahmed (2009 PTD 266). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a de novo disposal by an appropriate Bench after providing both parties an opportunity of being heard, within a timeframe of three months. The key principle laid down is that matters involving questions of law must be heard and adjudicated by an appropriate Bench and not by a Member Technical sitting alone.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a Member Technical sitting singly decide an appeal involving questions of law?
  • What is the legal consequence when an order is passed by an incompetent single member of the Tribunal on a matter of law?
  • Whether the High Court can remand a case back to the Tribunal for de novo disposal when the initial order is legally flawed?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 32(5), Customs Act 1969
  • Section 81, Customs Act 1969
  • Section 25(7), Customs Act 1969
Customs Reference ApplicationMember TechnicalCustoms Appellate TribunalSingle Member BenchRemandDe novo disposalQuestions of law

ORDER

1. ' By this Special Customs Reference Application filed against the order of the Tribunal, dated 9-10- 2007 in Customs Appeal No.K-481 of 2006 the following questions said to have arisen from that order have been proposed for the opinion of this Court:-

(1) In view of the provision of section 32(5) of the Customs Act, 1969 whether the Member Tribunal was justified in giving his own interpretation of the said provision of law?

(2) Whether the valuation issued by the Deputy Controller Valuation was in accordance with law?

(3) Whether the Member Tribunal has rightly interpreted/read the provisions of section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969?

(4) Whether the provisions of section 25(7) as interpreted by the Member Tribunal is justified and in accordance with law?

2. Mr. Raja M. Iqbal the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order has been passed by a Member Technical sitting singly and since matters of law are involved, therefore, this order is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Muzammil Ahmed (2009 PTD 266).

3. We have examined the impugned order and are of the considered view that the appeal before the Member Technical involved matter of law and, therefore, in view of the above judgment of this Court, the A impugned order could not have been passed by Member Technical sitting singly.

4. Therefore, following the above judgment, we will remand the case back to the Tribunal to be placed before an appropriate Bench for de novo disposal after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard. Such exercise may preferably be completed within a period of three months.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.