1993 SCMR 2267

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the.Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1993 SCMR 2267

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Date1992-12-20

Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Saood Jan and Wali Muhammad Khan

Authored byNasim Hasan Shah

ResultAppeals dismissed

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

This matter concerns a series of appeals challenging the High Court's reliance on the precedent established in the Al-Samrez Enterprises case (1986 SCMR 1917) regarding customs duties, specifically in light of the subsequent insertion of Section 31-A into the Customs Act, 1969, via the Finance Ordinance, 1988. The core legal question was whether the introduction of Section 31-A effectively nullified the ratio of the Al-Samrez Enterprises judgment for cases involving Letters of Credit opened prior to the enactment of the amendment. The Supreme Court, referencing its own subsequent rulings in Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and Federation of Pakistan v. M/s. Mahmood (Pvt.) Ltd., held that where Bills of Entry were presented or Letters of Credit were opened before July 1, 1988, the transactions are considered past and closed. Consequently, the provisions of Section 31-A do not apply to such cases. The Court affirmed that the ratio of the Al-Samrez Enterprises case remains applicable to these specific circumstances, leading to the dismissal of the Federation's appeals.

Questions settled in this judgment

Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 apply to transactions where Letters of Credit were opened prior to July 1, 1988?
Are cases involving Bills of Entry presented before July 1, 1988, considered past and closed transactions?
Does the ratio of the Al-Samrez Enterprises case (1986 SCMR 1917) remain applicable to customs cases involving pre-July 1988 transactions?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 31-A, Customs Act 1969

customs dutypast and closed transactionLetters of CreditFinance Ordinance 1988statutory interpretationretrospective application

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---All the above-noted appeals have been put up for hearing together as the pivotal point involved in all of them is common, namely, whether the High Court was justified in relying on this Court's judgment in Al-Samrez Enterprises' case (1986 SCM R 1917) despite the insertion of Section 31-A in the Customs Act, 1969 vide Finance Ordinance, 1988 which sought to nullify the ratio of the aforesaid judgment?

2. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, learned Deputy Attorney-General, has today, however, very fairly pointed out that since the grant of leave to appeal in these cases this Court has had occasion to consider this question and it has found that in all those cases in which Bills of Entry were presented on dates prior to Ist July, 1988 the matter is to be deemed to have become a past and closed transaction, by operation of the prevalent law and, therefore, all such cases were not hit by the provisions of section 31-A (See Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan CA. No, 915-K of 1990, decided on 24th September-1991, 1993 SCM R 1905) .

3. ' Mr. Ashtar Ali, learned counsel for the respondents in some of these appeals, pointed out that the same view was also taken by another Bench of this Court in Federation of Pakistan v. M/s. Mahmood (Pvt.) Ltd. (CA. No, 187-K/1990, decided on 7-2-1991).

4. Admittedly in all these appeals the Letters of Credit were opened on dates prior to 1-7-1988. Hence the provisions of section 31-A of the Customs Act were not attracted in the facts of these cases and the ratio of Al-Samrez Enterprises' case (1986 SCM R 1917) would be applicable and could be availed of. These appeals, therefore, are of no avail.

5. ' All the above noted appeals must, therefore, fail and are, accordingly, dismissed herewith. The parties, however, will be left to bear their own costs.

Cited by 6 cases