4776/2021 Const. P. M/s Al-Hamd Steel Furnace (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)

Sindh High Court2021

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal

Share on WhatsApp
4776/2021 Const. P. M/s Al-Hamd Steel Furnace (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal Order Date: 09-SEP-21 The amendment, as sought by the petitioner, could not have been carried out in terms of Section 45(2) of Customs Act, 1969 as this section relates to an obvious error in the import manifest or an omission which in the opinion of such officer was result of an accident or inadvertence. Petitioners case has not fallen in any of such exceptions inviting and/or calling for an amendment or issuance of supplementary import manifest as it is apparently a deliberate attempt to provide an umbrella to the original consignee as against recovery of Rs.71.179 Million. --Previously there was absolutely no permission whatsoever for carrying out any amendment in the import manifest except as provided in subsection (2). This subsection (3) was replaced by a proviso introduced through Finance Act 2021 which now provides that before berthing of vessel or the crossover of the vessel, as the case may be, the person incharge of a conveyance or his duly authorized agent may amend the import manifest subject to rules notified by the Board. ---The replaced subsection (3) of Section 45 would be applicable in the sense that except as provided in subsection (2) no import manifest shall be amended. Event disclosed is prior to amendment carried out via Finance Bill 2021. This would leave a very little margin, in fact no margin, for the amendment sought to be carried out in the import manifest in terms of subsection (2) as it is specifically for an obvious error or in fact an omission, which in the opinion of the concerned officer is a result of accident or inadvertence. In fact petitioners case has not fallen in either of the two i.e. its case is neither covered by subsection (2) of Section 45 nor the proviso recently inserted by Finance Act, 2021.
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020