KARACHI: A division bench of Sindh High Court (SHC) issued notices to the customs officials and deputy attorney general directing them to file their respective parawise comments on a constitutional petition filed by M/s Hinopak Motors Limited challenging additional customs duty imposed under SRO 572(1)/2020 on auto parts.
On 25 October 2020, counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner is a limited company and is engaged in manufacturing and sales of buses & trucks, it is submitted that the petitioner is industrial undertaking having their own manufacturing plant, the petitioner is part of the global leading brand of buses and trucks manufacturer, it is engaged in imports of components in kit form including complete knocked down (CKD) kits which are subsequently manufactured and assembled at the manufacturing plants of the petitioner and then sold in the market.
Counsel argued that petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal application of SRO 572(1)/2020 dated June 30, 2020 which purports to levy, demand and collect additional customs duty on import of goods specified is first schedule to the customs act, 1969 at the rate specified therein.
He submitted that this includes import of components for the manufacturer/ assembly of vehicles by the petitioner, it is submitted that the additional customs duty imposed under SRO 572(1)/2020 is inapplicable to imports made by the petitioner during the period 2016 to 2021, as any duty including additional customs duty imposed under the act, 1969 is excess of the maximum duty including additional customs duty as provided in tariff plan, for vehicles as well as raw material sub components, assembly, sub assembly, CKD (localized and non localized), falling under respective PCT Heading is not payable.
Citing secretary revenue division, secretary Ministry of Industries and Production, chairman FBR, Collector Customs Appraisement West, East and Port Qasim as respondents, petitioner pleaded the court to declare that action of the respondents is illegal and mala fide and declare that said SRO have no applicability to the auto industry including the petitioner.
