Measuring imported liquid cargo: Supreme Court admits appeal against SHC decision

The Supreme Court has to determine the location where a liquid cargo should be measured for the assessment of customs duty - either while it is in the vessel, or after it is siphoned into the onshore tanks.
The point had been raised in an appeal which the Federal Government has filed against Sindh High Court judgement which had struck down the parameters laid down by the Central Board of Revenue in this connection.
The appeals have been preferred in the cases filed by Fatima Enterprises Limited and some other firms, importers of refined palm oil, and have been admitted for hearing.
SHC said that CBR decision to measure the palm oil in ships tanks the vessel for assessment of customs duty was not in accordance with law and contrary to the established practice.
Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan said that measuring oil in onshore tanks would seriously "prejudice" the interests of the Government as, being in the control of the consignees, there would be no check on the theft or pilferage. This situation would deprive the Customs Department of duty it is entitled under the law, he added.
The Attorney General also argued that shooting down of CBR's directive to the collectorates was done by SHC without jurisdiction.
In its directive of March, 1992, the CBR had considered the question of tolerance limit on the bulk liquid cargo and decided that on board the vessel 'Joint Survey Certificate' and 'Dry Certificate' should be considered simultaneously to determine the tolerance limits.
"Tolerance allowance shall be worked out for the quantity of liquid bulk cargo on the basis of these certificates and refunds should not be granted if the joint survey report and dry certificate confirm that quantity manifested had arrived and pumped in full, even if the Karachi Port Trust's out-turn report shows a shortage of more than 0.25 percent."
The Board had ruled that the refund claims lodged on the basis of KPT's out-turn reports should also not be entertained.
Admitting the appeals for hearing, the Second Bench comprising of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, Justice Rana Baghwandas and Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan said that the contentions put forward needed examination, and directed the office to fix the cases at an early date.