| Case ID |
fdc86a23-5c6f-4a70-90b8-a626b21a4fd0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Special Customs Reference Applications Nos. 295 to |
| Decision Date |
Feb 15, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 15, 2021 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed all Special Customs Reference Applications Nos. 295 to 448 and 461 to 532 of 2014 as time barred. The court held that the applications were filed after the expiration of the 90-day limitation period stipulated under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner, THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the delay in filing, including the absence of a condonation application or supporting documents to prove the belated receipt of the impugned order. The court emphasized that government entities are not entitled to preferential treatment regarding limitation issues and must adhere to the same procedural timelines as ordinary litigants. Consequently, without adequate justification for the delay, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the applications. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision rendered on February 15, 2021, the Sindh High Court adjudicated Special Customs Reference Applications Nos. 295 to 448 and 461 to 532 of 2014, involving THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and MESSRS DREAM GARMENTS. Central to the case was the interpretation and application of section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, which governs the limitation period for filing such references. The petitioner, represented by advocates Muhammad Khalil Dogar and Mirza Nadeem Taqi, contended that the applications were filed within the prescribed 90-day period, asserting that the impugned order was received on February 10, 2014. However, the court meticulously examined the timeline, revealing that the applications were lodged on May 3 and May 9, 2014, thereby exceeding the limitation period which had expired on March 30, 2014.
The court underscored the principle that government departments, despite their stature, are not exempt from adhering to statutory timelines and cannot seek preferential treatment in matters of legal proceedings. The absence of a formal condonation application or any substantial evidence to corroborate the delayed receipt of the order led the bench to dismiss the applications, highlighting the necessity for transparent and timely legal actions. This decision reinforces the judiciary's stance on procedural compliance, ensuring that all parties, irrespective of their governmental or private standing, are held to equal standards under the law. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder for legal practitioners and governmental bodies on the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the ramifications of non-compliance within the Pakistani legal framework. Additionally, the case references pivotal precedents such as Government of Pakistan v. Malbrow Builders and Federation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin, grounding its verdict in established legal doctrines and reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law. This decision is expected to influence future litigations involving government entities, emphasizing the need for meticulous adherence to procedural requirements and the non-negotiable nature of statutory limitation periods in customs-related legal proceedings. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
MESSRS DREAM GARMENTS
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar Justice,
Agha Faisal Justice
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Khalil Dogar,
Mirza Nadeem Taqi
|
| Petitioners |
THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
|
| Respondents |
MESSRS DREAM GARMENTS
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 1002,
2021 PTD 1042,
(2021) 124 TAX 603
|
| Other Citations |
Government of Pakistan v. Malbrow Builders, Contractor 2006 SCMR 1248,
Chairman, District Evacuee Trust, Jhelum v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 2002 SC 436,
Federation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin and others 1996 SCMR 727
|
| Laws Involved |
Customs Act, 1969
|
| Sections |
196
|