1988 SCMR 1511

LAHORE TEXTILE & GENERAL MILLS LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1988 SCMR 1511

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petitions Nos.144‑R to 154‑11,178‑11,188‑R, 180‑R to 187‑R, 420, 421,454,455, 456 to 458 and 463 of 1988

Date1988-06-01

Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Shafiur Rahman and Usman Ali Shah

Authored byMuhammad Haleem

ResultLeave granted

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which ruled against the petitioners. The core legal question for consideration is whether the levy of additional customs duty as a surcharge under section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982, and as Iqra surcharge under section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985, could be levied in light of exemptions granted under notifications issued pursuant to section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioners contended that the exemptions covered the additional levies, whereas the Deputy Attorney-General argued that the levies were under separate enactments not covered by the section 19 exemptions. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the petitioners could claim exemption on the basis of the notifications regarding the additional levies imposed by the Finance Ordinance, 1982, and the Finance Act, 1985, while issuing interim orders allowing the clearance of goods upon furnishing bank guarantees.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether additional customs duty as surcharge under section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982 can be levied despite exemptions granted under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969?
Whether Iqra surcharge under section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985 is covered by exemption notifications issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 2, Finance Ordinance 1982
Section 5, Finance Act 1985
Section 19, Customs Act 1969

customs dutysurchargeIqra surchargeexemption notificationleave to appealfinance ordinance

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J. ‑‑In this and the other connected petitions, the question for consideration is as to whether the levy of additional customs duty as surcharge under section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982 and additional customs duty as Iqra surcharge under section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985, could be levied in view of the exemption granted under notifications dated 29th of hay, 1986 and 14th of June, 1984 issued under section 19 of the Customs Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners claim that this exemption covers the levy of additional customs duty under the aforesaid legislative measures while on the other hand the learned Deputy Attorney‑General contends that this levy is under separate enactments and until they are exempted under the exemption provisions, the exemption granted under section 19 cannot extend to the levy under these measures. There is no amendment of the Customs Act but only with reference to the goods specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1969, that the levy is chargeable under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Finance Ordinance. There is a similar provision in the Finance Act of 1985.

3. The High Court has held against the petitioners and as leave has already been granted to examine the identical question in Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1984 S C M RI 32, we would grant leave to examine the question whether the petitioners can claim exemption on the basis of the two notifications of the additional levy by section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 19821 and section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985.

4. Security for costs Rs.2,500 in each case. As an interim measure till the decision of these appeals we would direct that the Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners in the High Court shall be kept alive and not enchased by the respondents. We are informed in Petitions Nos.180 to 187 of 1988, 420 of 1988 and 439 of 1988 that the goods have not been cleared as yet and the learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions state that they should also be allowed to clear the goods on the same terms. The learned Deputy Attorney General states that on the basis of the orders in the other cases, he has no objection if the goods are cleared or released on the petitioners furnishing Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the concerned Deputy Collector (Customs), and we order accordingly.

5. The appeals arising from these petitions shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, and direct that the appeals should be listed for hearing on the re‑opening of the Court in October, 1988.

6. M.B.A./L‑12/S Leave granted