AGL 38.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.21%)
AIRLINK 203.02 Decreased By ▼ -4.75 (-2.29%)
BOP 10.17 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.09%)
CNERGY 6.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.54 (-7.63%)
DCL 9.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-4.1%)
DFML 40.02 Decreased By ▼ -1.12 (-2.72%)
DGKC 98.08 Decreased By ▼ -5.38 (-5.2%)
FCCL 34.96 Decreased By ▼ -1.39 (-3.82%)
FFBL 86.43 Decreased By ▼ -5.16 (-5.63%)
FFL 13.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.70 (-4.79%)
HUBC 131.57 Decreased By ▼ -7.86 (-5.64%)
HUMNL 14.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.57%)
KEL 5.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-6.03%)
KOSM 7.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-7.51%)
MLCF 45.59 Decreased By ▼ -1.69 (-3.57%)
NBP 66.38 Decreased By ▼ -7.38 (-10.01%)
OGDC 220.76 Decreased By ▼ -1.90 (-0.85%)
PAEL 38.48 Increased By ▲ 0.37 (0.97%)
PIBTL 8.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-3.88%)
PPL 197.88 Decreased By ▼ -7.97 (-3.87%)
PRL 39.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-2.06%)
PTC 25.47 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-4.32%)
SEARL 103.05 Decreased By ▼ -7.19 (-6.52%)
TELE 9.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.28%)
TOMCL 36.41 Decreased By ▼ -1.80 (-4.71%)
TPLP 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.15%)
TREET 25.12 Decreased By ▼ -1.33 (-5.03%)
TRG 58.04 Decreased By ▼ -2.50 (-4.13%)
UNITY 33.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-1.38%)
WTL 1.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-9.04%)
BR100 11,890 Decreased By -408.8 (-3.32%)
BR30 37,357 Decreased By -1520.9 (-3.91%)
KSE100 111,070 Decreased By -3790.4 (-3.3%)
KSE30 34,909 Decreased By -1287 (-3.56%)

LAHORE: A customs official has allegedly charged levy of smartphones against a consignment of ordinary phones, said sources.

According to details, an importer had imported ordinary mobile phones, but the customs official categorized them as smartphones to apply a higher levy.

It may be noted that the legal provision was previously meant to impose mobile handset levy on smartphones supported by a table which gave categories of smart phones and rates of levy per set. Subsequently, an amendment resulted into replacing the words ‘category of smartphone’ with the words ‘mobile phones having C&F Value (US Dollars)’.

Stance of the Customs official was that by changing the table, it had been conferred the power to recover the said levy not only on the smartphones but also on the ordinary phones which did not fall in the category of smartphones.

The importer made a presentation to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) against the viewpoint of the department, which referred the same to the finance division for a clarification.

In the meantime, the relevant appellate forum reached the conclusion that without amending the charging section, and merely by amending the table, the levy could not be recovered. It further maintained that the reference to the table was to the extent of the rates which were to be specified and in view of the fact that the charging section remained unaltered, therefore, the charging section itself could not stand altered or amended by a mere substitution of column in the heading of the table.

The department, on the other hand, was of the view that the intention of the legislature was clear that the phones other than the smart phones were also subjected to the levy as reflected in the table.

But the importer won his stance by agitating that the right to recovery of any levy rests in the charging section and the table is merely meant to prescribe the rates at which such levy is to be recovered on various goods/items. Unless the charging section confers a power to recover a levy on the article or class of goods, mere mention of a different class, types of category of goods clearly goes beyond the scope of charging section.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.