MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
The petitioner imported two consignments of Radiation Recuperator Equipment, initially claiming classification under PCT Heading 8419.5090 at a 10% customs duty rate. Following examination, the customs authorities classified the goods under PCT Heading 8419.5010 at a 35% customs duty rate, which the petitioner paid under protest. The petitioner's subsequent refund claim, appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal, and customs reference application before the High Court of Sindh were all dismissed, upholding the 35% duty classification. The core legal question was whether equipment shaped like both shell and tube falls under the description 'Shell or Tube type' or 'other' under the Pakistan Customs Tariff. The Supreme Court held that goods shaped like shell as well as tube correctly fall under the description 'Shell or Tube type' and are subject to the 35% duty rate, finding the concurrent findings of the lower forums unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that tariff classifications based on concurrent factual findings regarding the physical characteristics of imported goods will not be disturbed when they reasonably fit the statutory description.
- Whether goods shaped like both shell and tube fall under the description 'Shell or Tube type' for customs tariff classification?
- Are concurrent findings of lower forums regarding customs classification unexceptionable when supported by the physical characteristics of the imported goods?
- Section 196, Customs Act 1969
' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---The petitioner had imported two consignments consisting of Radiation Recuperator Equipment claiming that the imported goods fell under PCT Heading 8419.5090 chargeable to customs duty at 10%. The available Shed staff, on first examination, declared the goods chargeable to same customs duty under a different PCT Heading 8419.8990. On further examination in the light of Manufacturer's Catalogue the classification of imported goods was declared under PCT Heading 8419.5010 chargeable to 35% customs duty which the petitioner paid under protest. Later, the petitioner filed a refund claim which ultimately, came up before the Collector of Customs (Appraisement), who observed that the goods were essentially a shell type Recuperator equipped with cylindrical tube bundles, therefore, they were rightly made chargeable to customs duty at 35% vide order-inoriginal dated 13-5-2005. Petitioner preferred thereagainst an appeal which was dismissed by Customs Appellate Tribunal under order, dated 5-4-2006. Feeling aggrieved petitioner made a customs reference application under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 that, too, was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh vide order, dated 17-3-2009 against which the petitioner has, now, sought leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that under Heading 8419.5010 classifiable as "Shell or Tube type" only those goods would fall which were shaped either like a "shell" or "Tube" type and not those which were shaped like "Shell and Tube" both. According to him the Radiation Recuperator imported by the petitioner was like "Shell and Tube", therefore, the same fell under the description of "other" chargeable to 15% duty under PCT Heading 8419.5090. Learned counsel contended that the Customs Appellate Tribunal and learned Division Bench of High Court, as well, did not apply their judicial mind and failed to appreciate the factual and legal position correctly.
3. We have given due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and with his assistance we have examined the record made available before us. Learned counsel for petitioner has admitted that the goods imported by petitioner were shaped like Shell as well as Tube, therefore, it does not appeal to a prudent mind to take the same out from description "Shell or Tube type" and put it under description "other" not akin to relevant description. We, therefore, do not fell persuaded to agree to the proposition advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. The Adjudicating Officer had correctly classified A the imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.5010. So also, the Customs Appellate Tribunal and learned Division Bench of High Court rightly dismissed the appeal and the Customs Reference of petitioner. The concurrent findings, seen in the above perspective, are unexceptionable. This petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed accordingly. Leave refused.