4867/2013 Const. P. Qasim International Container Terminal (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 06-JAN-20
The main object of the Customs Act, 1969 is to make it expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to levy and collection of customs duties, fee and service charges and to provide for other allied matters. So it does not matter that the amending provisions do not itself qualify as one imposing duties and taxes etc. All other ancillary and allied provisions in the Customs Act are meant to facilitate the officials to carry out their main objective and mandate and that is the collection of duties and taxes by applying law. Customs Act is nothing but a fiscal Statute meant to extract customs duties and other taxes. A simple reading of Article 73(2) (a to g), may distract the ideal conclusion but it is to be seen that these very amendments are inserted in a fiscal statute, the main object of which is to extract duties, taxes etc. These amendments are thus nothing but to toe and facilitate the main object of the statute and hence it is ancillary and incidental to main object of imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax which they would ultimately perform while performing their duties within the premises of these private port/terminal operators to whom licenses were issued. Each statute carry different mechanics to assign a varying meaning of the "same word". The meaning of same word may vary from one legislation to another and it is the Statute and the very provision itself that would determine as to which varying definition would come into play to carry the object of such legislation. In order to find intent of word in any provision of statute, it is always wise or logical to discover individual meaning of a solitary word first, however at times it is to be read in connection with entire provisions to find logical meaning closer to the functioning of the Statute and provisions. A word may have potential to be explained differently. Meaning of a word discovered judicially to understand a provision of statute does not necessarily be applied to provision of another Statute as it may dis-balance the scheme of that Statute. It may tend to carry same meaning in a similar Statute, if used in different provisions/Sections etc. but may not necessarily carry same intent in another Statute. Entertaining an application by an adjudicating authority is altogether different in the present contest as they (port operator) do not enjoy such authority and authorization as far as adjudication is concerned. Certificate itself is adjudication by someone having authority in this regard which require no more deliberation by private port operators.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.