The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed urgent hearing petition filed by filed by M/s Dawn Leather Industries against detention of three consignments on the alleged flimsy ground that the manufacturing unit of the petitioner is no more existing.
A two-member bench, headed by Justice Abdul Rasool Mamon heard the matter. M. Ishque advocate appeared before the court on behalf of the petitioner; however, the court adjourned the matter on the request of learned counsel.
Earlier, counsel for the petitioner stated in its constitutional petition that it is engaged in the lawful business of manufacturing-cum-exportation of the articles made of artificial leather to the various markets around-the-world and also registered as a manufacturer with the IRS authorities, therefore, considering the conditions of the SRO 942(1)/2009 dated 13/06/2009 in general and condition numbers (i) (ii) (iii) & (vii) in particular, the petitioner has temporarily imported raw material for export of leather bags.
He argued that according to the condition no (vi) of the SRO 492 (I)/2009, the petitioner as well as other similarly placed importer-cum-exporter are bound to consume the temporarily imported raw material with 18 months.
He argued that the time limitation can be extended by the collector of customs for further period of six months on payment of surcharge @ 1% per month and thereafter it can be further be extended by the board (FBR) on exceptional circumstances.
He further argued that the controversy, which is matter/cause of this petition, only started, when the deputy Collector of Customs (R&D) Appraisement West unilaterally, without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of SRO 492(I)/2009, detained three imported consignments of the petitioner on the flimsy ground that the manufacturing unit of the petitioner is no more existing.
Citing Secretary Ministry of Revenue, Chief Collector of Customs Appraisement South, the Collector of Customs Model Customs Collectorate of Appraisement West and others as respondents, he pleaded the court to declare that detention of its consignments completely mis-interpretation of the SRO 492(I)/2009 is illegal without jurisdiction and against the dictates of law, natural justice and they have no power to deny the exemption/ concession available to petitioner in same terms and cannot deviate from the practice persisting since the inception/issuance of said SRO.
Petitioner also pleaded the court to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action including encashment of securities and blocking of the NTN/ user-ID of the petitioner or create any hurdles for release of the up-coming consignments with exemption of duties and taxes.