KARACHI: A division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) issued notices to customs department and deputy attorney general on a constitutional petition filed by Hafiz Abdul Majid, director/ CEO of M/s HPY Coating (Pvt) Ltd against lodging first information report (FIR) by customs officials for concealment, illegal removal of warehouse goods & denial of access to record & warehoused goods during stocktaking.
On 10 November 2020, during the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is only manufacturer of seamless pipes and tubes in Pakistan, saving millions of dollars for public exchequer and pays duties and taxes amounting to Rs400 to 500 million per annum as well as providing jobs to 1100 people in different categories and grade.
He further submitted that petitioner has been nominated in a fasle, manipulated and without jurisdiction FIR allegedly dated Sep 16, 2020, the said exercise has been conducted in malicious, manipulated and fraudulent manner.
Citing secretary ministry of finance, chief collector of customs, collector of customs Hyderabad as respondents, counsel pleaded the court to declare that impugned FIR patently malafide, outright illegal, without jurisdiction and to quash/ strike down the same.
It needs to be mentioned here that earlier, investigation officer had submitted FIR before trial court and stated that during scrutiny of data received through PRAL, it has been observed that above mentioned importer imported consignment of into-bond goods declaration dated July 20, 2017 which was liable to be ex-bonded within prescribed period (within six months) specified under section 98 of customs act, 1969 on payment of leviable duties and taxes but bonder has failed to clear the same within stipulated period despite issuance of notices under section 111 and 112 of the customs act, 1969.
He further informed the court that customs officials conducting the stocktaking dated Sept 15, 2020 and 279 MT steel pipe external anticorrosive product line and steel pipe inner anticorrosive product line were not available in the five containers worth Rs170 million.
He argued that during the investigation, it has been established that the licensee has illegally removed the above mentioned goods and violated sales tax act, 1990 and income tax ordinance, 2001, different sections of customs act, 1969.
