D.G. CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI and another vs Messrs TRADE
This matter concerns nine appeals filed by the Directorate General of Customs Valuation against orders passed by the Islamabad High Court. The core legal question addressed is whether the Islamabad High Court possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging valuation rulings issued by customs authorities in Karachi, where the imported consignments also arrived at the Karachi Sea Port. The appellants argued that because the valuation rulings were issued in Karachi and revision petitions were pending before the Director General of Customs Valuation in Karachi, the Islamabad High Court lacked jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had failed to address the jurisdictional challenge and had instead disposed of the petitions by granting interim relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the cases to the Islamabad High Court with specific directions to first adjudicate the question of its territorial jurisdiction before proceeding with the merits of the petitions.
- Does the Islamabad High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging a customs valuation ruling issued in Karachi for goods arriving at the Karachi Sea Port?
- Is a High Court required to decide the question of its own territorial jurisdiction before granting interim relief in a writ petition?
' In these nine appeals of identical nature, leave was granted in terms of the order dated 16-4-2013, against the impugned orders dated 23-5-2012, passed in Writ Petitions Nos.2732, 2822, 2879, 2880, 2956, 3432 of 2011 and 99, 370, 2782 of 2012, inter alia, on the following grounds:--
(i) the cases where importers are from Karachi and consignment of goods have also reached at the Karachi port, the Islamabad High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petition relating to any dispute regarding such consignments;
(ii) the procedure adopted by the High Court of Islamabad in disposing of several connected petitions through a sketchy order is unwarranted by law. Moreso when public exchequer is involved in these cases and delay in its recovery is likely to cause serious financial setback to the Government."
2. Today, at the outset of his submissions, Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants, has vehemently contended that since all the imported consignments of the respondents had arrived at Karachi Sea Port for clearance, the relevant valuation ruling dated 27- 9-2011, impugned before the Islamabad High Court was issued by the appellant No,2 (Director Valuation, Directorate General of Customs Valuation, Custom House) at Karachi, it has been further challenged by the respondents through revision petitions which are pending before the appellant No,1 (Director General, Directorate General of Customs Valuation, at Karachi, therefore, the Islamabad High Court lacks its territorial jurisdiction in entertaining and adjudicating any dispute in this regard.
3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the question of jurisdiction has not at all been attended to by the Islamabad High Court, but the Writ Petitions, filed by the respondents, have been finally disposed of by extending interim'relief to the respondents in terms that their goods were ordered to be released subject to production of post dated cheques regarding disputed duty.
4. Faced with this situation, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents candidly states that the impugned order of identical nature passed in the connected writ petitions may be set aside and these cases may be remanded to the Islamabad High Court with clear directions to first decide the question of its jurisdiction in such like matters. To this proposal, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants is also in agreement.
5. This being the position, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 23-5-2012 are accordingly set aside, and these cases are remanded to the Islamabad High Court to first decide the question of its jurisdiction in such like matters.
Cited by 7 cases
- The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Model 2022 PTD 956
- Rasheed Ahmed vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, etc 2020 MLD 108, 2019 LHC 2976
- Dr. TAHIR MASUD vs AMJAD ALI KHAN and 4 others 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1167
- Mr. Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi vs The President of Pakistan through the Principal Secretary President House, Islamabad & others 2017 PHC 1095
- MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI vs PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN through Principal 2018 PLD Peshawar 70
- IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI Versus MIAN MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN/MEMBER NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, PRIME MINISTER'S HOUSE, ISLAMABAD 2017 PLD 265
- Messrs ZAINAB DF (PVT.) LIMITED through General Manager vs CUSTOMS 2019 PCRLJ 518, 2018 PTD 1742