KARACHI: A two-member bench of The Sindh High Court (SHC) allowed a constitutional petition filed by M/s. Quick Contractors & Traders against the Collector of Customs against detention of its two imported old and used Hino Prime Mover Trucks.
On 5 April 2022, Customs Today received a detail order passed by Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan and Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry.
Court observed in its judgment that “by short order dated 22-02-2022 we had answered the Reference against the Applicant (Collector Customs), and the constitution petition in favor of the Petitioner (Importer).
On 15-12-2014, the importer filed goods declaration to import two „old and used Hino Prime Mover Trucks‟ under PCT Code 8701.2040 chargeable to customs duty @ 15%.
However, per the examination report, followed by a show-cause notice, and then by an Order-in Original No. 387091-29062015, Customs held that the vehicles in question were not prime-movers; rather these were trucks classifiable as „other‟ under PCT Code 8704.2390 which are chargeable to customs duty @ 30%; but since Appendix „C‟ of the Import Policy Order, 2013 had prohibited the import of a truck in used, second-hand condition, the vehicles in question were liable to outright confiscation.
However, on the appeal of the Importer, the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal concluded that the vehicles in question were prime-movers and ordered release.
By way of the present Reference, the Collector Customs has impugned such order of the Tribunal; whereas, by way of the connected constitution petition, the importer seeks implementation of the Tribunal’s order.
Learned counsel were heard in the presence of the learned Deputy Attorney General and the record was perused with their assistance.
On the other hand, as noted by the learned Appellate Tribunal, the fact that the vehicles imported were prime-movers was substantiated by the pre-shipment inspection certificate of the vehicles issued by a recognized inspection company, which was also the criteria prescribed in the Import Policy Order, hence reliable evidence especially when such certificate was never disputed by the department.
Nothing has been pointed out to us to show that such finding of the Appellate Tribunal is in any way preserve or suffers from any misreading of evidence. In these circumstances, we had answered the Reference against the Customs and in favor of the Importer, and the constitution petition was accordingly allowed in favor of the Importer by our short order.
A copy of this judgment under seal of the Court be sent to the Customs Appellate Tribunal as per section 196(5) of the Customs Act, 1969”.
