MASOOD TEXTILE MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑It has been contended that since under subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, the Federal Government by a Notification in the official Gazette can levy regulatory duty to the extent of 50$ of the amount specified in the first schedule and as in the instant case 20$ duty was specified in the first schedule, the respondent could have imposed regulatory duty to the extent of 30 per cent being 50$ of the duty specified in the first Schedule. The above contention prima facie seems to have some force and we would therefore allow the petitioner to pay the customs duty and regulatory duty to the extent of 30$ in cash and for the balance to furnish a Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners have also sought the exemption to the extent of 50$ from the payment of Iqra and import surcharge which are payable at the rate of 50% each, on the basis of SRO‑500/(I)/85, dated 14‑6‑1984, wherein in the table the exemption is granted to the extent of half of the customs duties in respect of the areas mentioned therein. According to the petitioners they fall under the Tehsil Jaranwala. They have also relied upon Notification No. SRO‑490 (0 /85, dated 23‑5‑1985 in which the duties have been defined as to include import surcharge and Iqra Surcharge.

3. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Noorul Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent points out that in the above SRO. 490 the duties have been defined under Section 19 of the Customs Act, whereas import surcharge and Iqra surcharge have been levied not under the Customs Act but under the Finance Act.

4. In a few writ petitions in which the petitioners have claimed total exemption from the payment of the customs duties and other taxes by virtue of the location of the factories in the tax free areas. Stays have been granted against the recovery of the above import surcharge and lqra surcharge on furnishing of bank guarantees. But the instant case is distinguishable as the exemption claimed is to the extent of 50$ only. It will have to be examined whether the same rule can be pressed into service

5. In our view, it will be appropriate for petitioners to pay the above two charges subject to their right to claim refund of the 50$ in case. they succeed in the above petition.

6. H . B . T . / M‑451/ K Order accordingly