| Case ID |
09acbb5b-e7f6-467c-b6f7-40709d250102 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Spl. Customs Appeals Nos. 140 and 141 of 2002 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 18, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 04, 2003 |
| Decision |
The appeals filed by the Director of the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) were dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. The Court emphasized that the Director did not qualify as an 'aggrieved person' nor could he be termed as a 'Collector' without appropriate authorization. The appeals were also deemed to have been filed out of time, as they were submitted after the expiration of the limitation period, despite the argument that the High Court's closure during summer vacation should extend the deadline. The court ruled that the notification regarding the closure did not provide for the filing of appeals, hence the appeals were not maintainable. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the appeals filed by the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) against the orders of the Tribunal. The main issues were the maintainability of the appeal and the timing of its filing. The Court ruled that the Director lacked the necessary standing to appeal, as he was neither an 'aggrieved person' nor a 'Collector' under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. Additionally, the Court upheld the argument regarding the limitations imposed by the Limitation Act, clarifying that the closure of the Court during summer vacation did not extend the deadline for filing appeals. This case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the definitions of legal terms, such as 'aggrieved person' and 'Collector', in the context of appeals in customs law. The decision reinforces precedents relating to the interpretation of the Limitation Act and the conditions under which appeals can be filed during court closures. Key aspects of this case include the judicial interpretation of the Limitation Act, the procedural requirements for filing appeals, and the specific roles defined under the Customs Act. Legal practitioners and advocates should take note of these principles to ensure compliance and proper representation in future cases. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE,
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Raja Muhammad Iqbal,
Khawaja Naveed Ahmed,
Mrs. Ismat Mehdi
|
| Petitioners |
DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE, KARACHI)
|
| Respondents |
MESSRS TESSORI TRADING CO., (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 768,
2004 PTD 1957
|
| Other Citations |
Fateh Ali Khan v. Subedar Muhammad Khan 1970 SCMR 238,
Jumma v. Maulvi Mubarak 1971 SCMR 779,
Lehar Khan v. Amir Hamza 1999 SCMR 108,
Nooruddin and 3 others v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan 2000 SCMR 354,
Fazal Karim and another v. Ghulam Jilani and others 1975 SCMR 452,
Ikramullah v. Said Jamal 1980 SCMR 375,
Appeal 746 in Suit No. 383 of 1886,
Ranchordas Tri Bhowandas v. Pestonji Jehamgir (1907) Vol. IX Bombay Law Report 1329,
Nachiyapa Mudait and others v. Ayyasama Ayyar ILR Vol. V Madras Series 189
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Customs Act (IV of 1969)
|
| Sections |
4,
194-A,
196
|