AIRLINK 182.71 Increased By ▲ 2.54 (1.41%)
BOP 10.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-8.49%)
CNERGY 8.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.4%)
CPHL 94.21 Decreased By ▼ -1.02 (-1.07%)
FCCL 46.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-0.52%)
FFL 16.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.74%)
FLYNG 28.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.52%)
HUBC 145.78 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (0.37%)
HUMNL 13.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.53%)
KEL 4.41 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-2%)
KOSM 5.79 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.12%)
MLCF 67.30 Decreased By ▼ -2.14 (-3.08%)
OGDC 213.28 Increased By ▲ 1.05 (0.49%)
PACE 6.08 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1%)
PAEL 47.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.1%)
PIAHCLA 17.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-1.17%)
PIBTL 9.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-6.24%)
POWER 14.26 Increased By ▲ 0.72 (5.32%)
PPL 170.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.09%)
PRL 34.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.67 (-1.93%)
PTC 22.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-1.81%)
SEARL 95.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.79 (-0.82%)
SSGC 42.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.27 (-2.93%)
SYM 15.61 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (10.01%)
TELE 7.47 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (2.75%)
TPLP 9.99 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.01%)
TRG 66.89 Increased By ▲ 1.29 (1.97%)
WAVESAPP 9.88 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.82%)
WTL 1.35 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.5%)
YOUW 3.83 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (2.41%)
AIRLINK 182.71 Increased By ▲ 2.54 (1.41%)
BOP 10.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-8.49%)
CNERGY 8.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.4%)
CPHL 94.21 Decreased By ▼ -1.02 (-1.07%)
FCCL 46.28 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-0.52%)
FFL 16.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-0.74%)
FLYNG 28.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.52%)
HUBC 145.78 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (0.37%)
HUMNL 13.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-0.53%)
KEL 4.41 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-2%)
KOSM 5.79 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.12%)
MLCF 67.30 Decreased By ▼ -2.14 (-3.08%)
OGDC 213.28 Increased By ▲ 1.05 (0.49%)
PACE 6.08 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1%)
PAEL 47.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.1%)
PIAHCLA 17.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-1.17%)
PIBTL 9.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-6.24%)
POWER 14.26 Increased By ▲ 0.72 (5.32%)
PPL 170.66 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.09%)
PRL 34.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.67 (-1.93%)
PTC 22.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-1.81%)
SEARL 95.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.79 (-0.82%)
SSGC 42.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.27 (-2.93%)
SYM 15.61 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (10.01%)
TELE 7.47 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (2.75%)
TPLP 9.99 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.01%)
TRG 66.89 Increased By ▲ 1.29 (1.97%)
WAVESAPP 9.88 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.82%)
WTL 1.35 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.5%)
YOUW 3.83 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (2.41%)
BR100 12,676 Decreased By -26.4 (-0.21%)
BR30 38,139 Decreased By -118.5 (-0.31%)
KSE100 118,430 Increased By 47 (0.04%)
KSE30 36,403 Increased By 8.1 (0.02%)

LAHORE: The importers of Cocoa Powder have failed to claim exemption under two different notifications simultaneously. According to details, the importers had claimed exemption from customs duty in terms of SRO 1261, which was neither disputed nor denied by the department.

However, at the same time, the importers were also entitled to exemption from additional customs duty in terms of serial No. 3(vi) of SRO 967 read with serial No.2, chapter VII, Part-II, table-B of fifth schedule to the Customs Act, 1969.

But the department was of the view that the importers cannot claim exemption under two different notifications/SROs simultaneously. The department pointed out that additional customs duty was levied pursuant to SRO 967(I)/2022 on all goods, therefore, the importers could not claim benefit of this SRO for its peculiar enforcement.

Since importers were aggrieved of levy of additional customs duty on importing Cocoa Powder, therefore, they challenged the departmental order. The importers also referred to a letter from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) holding that an importer can claim the benefit of more than one notification at a time, therefore, they should be allowed for the same.

But the department took the plea that the importers are not entitled to exemption from additional customs duty in terms of SRO 967, as the same is available only to such important, which are chargeable to the customs duty under the fifth schedule of the Act while the department has charged them under the first schedule to the Act. According to the department, it was not a case of claiming of exemption under two different notifications/SROs simultaneously, rather the porters were otherwise not entitled to claim any exemption under SRO 967.

The relevant appellate forum maintained that the argument that the importers claim for exemption under two different SROs has been denied in violation of FBR’s letter is misconceived because they are not entitled for any exemption pursuant to serial No.3 of SRO 967.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.