KARACHI: A division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) dismissed special customs reference application filed by M/s Fauji Cement Company Limited through Mayhar Kazi Advocate against Deputy Collector of Customs Appraisement Karachi challenging impugned Judgment dated 13.06.2014 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal at Karachi.
On 11 March 2021, during the hearing, the Applicant has impugned Judgment dated 13.06.2014 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal at Karachi proposing various Questions of Law; however, after directions of the Court, the Applicant filed rephrased / amended Questions of Law on 24.09.2018, whereas, the petition has been filed challenging an Order in Original No.SI/MISC/90- VI/AUDIT dated 27.12.1995 on the ground that controversy regarding status of goods being manufactured locally was already pending before this Court and an application was filed seeking permission to withdraw the statutory appeal pending before the Collector Appeals.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in law by simply relying on certain orders passed against the Applicant in earlier round of litigation, whereas, the facts of that case were materially different; that the Judgment reported as Fauji Cement was in respect of an entirely different set of facts; hence, not applicable; that the NOC dated 29.5.1993 issued by the Ministry of Industries at the time of opening of Letter of Credit was valid for all legal purposes and as per the said NOC the goods were not manufactured locally at that point of time.
Counsel further argues that hence, the Applicant was entitled for exemption under the SRO in question; that CGO 17/1994 was promulgated on 30.10.1994 through which the list of locally manufactured goods was notified, whereas, the Letter of Credit was established by the Applicant on 06.10.1994 and therefore, the Applicant was protected under the doctrine of vested rights; that any undertaking given by the Applicant at the time of import does not bind the Applicant to abide by decision of FBR inasmuch as there is no estoppel against the law; that SRO 484(I)/1992 dated 14.05.1992 (SRO 484) does not stipulate as to how it is to be determined that what goods are manufactured locally or not, and therefore, any undertaking of the Applicant cannot be used so as to bind the Applicant to abide by FBR’s decision; that the decision of the Special Committee constituted for the purposes of determination of goods in question being manufactured locally or otherwise was set aside, by a learned Division Bench of this Court; hence, the said Committee’s decision is no more valid; that this is notwithstanding the fact that though subsequently, the Division Bench’s Judgment was set aside by consent but still the matter was remanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the original authority for deciding the issue which impliedly means that such report cannot be treated as binding and the matter was open, whereas, the Applicant’s right to contest the same cannot be taken away.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Department has supported the impugned judgment and has contended that the judgment in the Fauji Cement (supra) case was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court4 against which Civil Review Petition was also dismissed; hence, no case is made out by the Applicant; that despite lapse of so many years even after adjudication of the case, the Applicant has failed to deposit the amount in question; that the Applicant gave an undertaking to abide by the decision of FBR in respect of the goods being manufactured locally or not; hence, is liable to pay the adjudged amount. He has praye
