| |
KTBA'S
News &
Views
|
Library and News & Views Committee
Mr. Haider Ali Patel (Convenor)
Mr. Iqbal Salman Pasha
Mr. Anwer Kashif Mumtaz
Mr. Ali A. Rahim
Mr. Arshad Siraj Memon
Ms. Yasmeen Ajani
Mr. Asif Ali Khan
Mr. Kazi Anwar Kamal
Mr. Rehan Siddiqui
Mr. Nadeem Iqbal
Syed Hassaan Naeem
|
|
| 2002 PTD (Trib.) 3053 |
32, 79, 80, 82, 156, 180 & 209 of Customs
Act, 1969 |
M/s. Dawlance (Pvt.) Ltd. and their clearing
agents M/s. Omalsons Corporation have been held guilty of
making an untrue statement and have been charged with penalty
in terms of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 by the Deputy
Collector of Customs. They imported a consignment of compressors
meant for domestic manufacturing of refrigerators and deep-freezers,
which was released on concessionary rate of duty under SRO
504(I)/94 dated June 9, 1994. The customs believed that in
terms of CBR's letter dated June 7, 1995 concession allowed
to the importer was not available to them and there existed
a relationship of agent and principal between the agent and
the importer which had created a liability on the agent within
the mischief of section 32. The Tribunal while scrutinizing
the provisions of section 32 ibid, held that in order to attract
the provisions of section 156(1)(14), presence of the following
factors is necessary: - |
| |
|
" To make any declaration, notice, certificate
or other document;
" To sign any declaration, etc.;
" To cause to be made or signed any declaration, etc.;
" To deliver or cause to be delivered any declaration,
etc., to an officer of Customs;
" To make any statement in answer to any question put
to him by an Officer of Customs, which he is required by or
under this Act to answer
|
| |
|
It has been held that the importer or his agent
did not make an incorrect declaration rather the goods have
been got cleared at concessionary rates which did not attract
the provisions of section 32 as the goods have been cleared
after proper assessment by the Customs authorities for which
a mechanism is duly provided under the Act viz. section 79
and 80 in which the agent merely acted on behalf of the importer.
It is also held that in the show cause issued by the Adjudicating
Officer, no mention of any action against the agent was specified
which in terms of section 180 of the Act was mandatory. Accordingly
it has been held that the agent could not be held responsible
for the action which entails levy of penalty under the circumstances
of the case |
| 2002 PTD 3087 (FTO) |
205 (s), 9, 10 & 156(8)(9) of Customs Act,
1969 |
The complainant imported Spindles and Bolsters
from China and filed bill of entry for home consumption and
inadvertently claimed the assessment of goods under PCT heading
8448.3300. Later it was revealed that duty on Bolsters was
10% instead of 20%. On the basis of decision of the Supreme
Court and High Court of Sindh in the case of Gulshan Spinning
Mills (1992 CLC 1579) the complainant applied for amendment
in the bill of entry for the goods to be classified under
H.S. Code 8448.3900. Although the Deputy Collector, Customs
(Sheds) confirmed the view of the complainant, the Assessing
authorities refused to accede to the request and did not allow
the refund of excess duty paid. Customs contended that judgment
relied upon was not applicable in the case as it related to
classification of Bolsters only whereas the impugned goods
were complete sets consisting Spindles, Bolsters and knee
brakes which entail duty of 20% under heading 8448.3300. Since
the complainant sent two applications to the Customs but did
not get any reply, he did not receive any document against
which he could file an appeal or approach legal forums, the
matter was recommended to Member Customs, CBR to decide the
classification |
| |
|
WEALTH TAX |
| 2002 PTD (Trib) 3051 |
Wealth Tax Act, 1963 |
Any advance received from the tenant in the
form of securities which is refundable to the tenant at the
time of vacation of the premises is an allowable liability.
The said securities are totally different and distinguishable
from the unadjusted advance rent and both cannot be treated
as same. |
| 2002 PTD (Trib) 3142 |
Wealth Tax Rule 8(3) |
The assessing officer cannot enhance the declared
value of the rent without the approval of the IAC. |
| 86 TAX 233 (Trib) |
WT |
History of the case cannot be deviated in the
absence of any solid reasons. No property could fetch double
value in the immediately subsequent year. History could be
taken as best guide while valuing the same property in a subsequent
year.. |
