Mian ABDUR REHMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by an importer challenging the levy of customs duty on Urea Moulding Compound. The petitioner contended that the customs authorities applied a discriminatory rate of 120% to his imports, while applying a significantly lower rate of 40% to a third party, Qureshi Enterprises, for the same commodity. The petitioner argued that the High Court erred by failing to address this specific allegation of discrimination in its judgment despite noting the issue. Upon reviewing the record and the department's reply regarding the disparity in duty rates, the Supreme Court found the respondent's explanation unsatisfactory. The Court held that the issue of discriminatory treatment required further examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the disparity in customs duty rates was legally permissible and whether the High Court's failure to adjudicate upon this point constituted a legal infirmity requiring correction.
- Does the application of disparate customs duty rates on identical imported commodities constitute unlawful discrimination?
- Is a High Court judgment legally infirm if it fails to adjudicate upon a specific plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by an importer against the levy of custom duty at a certain rate; and consequential dismissal of his writ petition, in this behalf.
2. ' Learned counsel has taken us through the impugned judgment and the record at pages 28 and 47 (Paper Book) - the bills of entry regarding the commodity in question (Urea Moulding Compound); one, relating to the petitioner's import, and the other, relating to the import by a third party Qureshi Enterprises. In petitioner's case the duty has been charged at the rate of 120% while in the case of Qureshi Enterprises it has been charged at the rate of 40%. Learned counsel contended that such discrimination was not permitted by law. And the High Court's judgment besides being erroneous on other points, suffers from legal infirmity that after having noted the point it has not dealt with it.
3. In order to satisfy ourselves with regard to the question whether the respondent/department had any good answer regarding the disparity, learned counsel drew our attention to their reply in this behalf; which having been perused, has not been found to be entirely satisfactory. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted.
4. ' Security Rs,5,000.
5. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents.