AGL 37.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.58%)
AIRLINK 168.65 Increased By ▲ 13.43 (8.65%)
BOP 9.09 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.22%)
CNERGY 6.85 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.93%)
DCL 10.05 Increased By ▲ 0.52 (5.46%)
DFML 40.64 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (0.82%)
DGKC 93.24 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (0.31%)
FCCL 37.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.46 (-1.2%)
FFBL 78.72 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.18%)
FFL 13.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.03%)
HUBC 114.10 Increased By ▲ 3.91 (3.55%)
HUMNL 14.95 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.4%)
KEL 5.75 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.35%)
KOSM 8.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-2.83%)
MLCF 45.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-0.37%)
NBP 74.92 Decreased By ▼ -1.25 (-1.64%)
OGDC 192.93 Increased By ▲ 1.06 (0.55%)
PAEL 32.24 Increased By ▲ 1.76 (5.77%)
PIBTL 8.57 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (5.02%)
PPL 167.38 Increased By ▲ 0.82 (0.49%)
PRL 31.01 Increased By ▲ 1.57 (5.33%)
PTC 22.08 Increased By ▲ 2.01 (10.01%)
SEARL 100.83 Increased By ▲ 4.21 (4.36%)
TELE 8.45 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.18%)
TOMCL 34.84 Increased By ▲ 0.58 (1.69%)
TPLP 11.24 Increased By ▲ 1.02 (9.98%)
TREET 18.63 Increased By ▲ 0.97 (5.49%)
TRG 60.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.51 (-0.83%)
UNITY 31.98 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.03%)
WTL 1.61 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (9.52%)
BR100 11,289 Increased By 73.1 (0.65%)
BR30 34,140 Increased By 489.6 (1.45%)
KSE100 105,104 Increased By 545.3 (0.52%)
KSE30 32,554 Increased By 188.3 (0.58%)

The Supreme Court Monday declared that the imposition of regulatory duty on mobile phones is valid and lawful even in the cases of import from Beijing under the agreement between Pakistan and China. A three-member bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal, heard the review petition of M/s Advance Telecom against the august court's judgment dated September 22, 2017 and dismissed it.
Advance Telecom, the petitioner, had challenged the levy of regulatory duty through notification upon mobile phones. It was their contention that the international treaty - Pak-China Trade Agreement (FTA) dated November 24, 2006 - executed by the federal government derives powers under section 18C of Customs Act read with the Free Trade Area Rules vide SRO No 1286(i) dated 24-12-2005. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan Advocate, representing the petitioner, contended that the said treaty is law of the land and specific rates of duty as per the treaty were duly notified by the federal government through SRO No 659/2007 dated June 30, 2007 and the said notification till to-date is in field.
He argued that the imposition of regulatory duty under SRO 869/2008 clearly mentions that the regulatory duty would not be chargeable on the goods imported under the FTA unless it is withdrawn, such duty could not be validly imposed at any subsequent stage.
He further contended that proviso to Section 18(5) of the Customs Act, 1969 is attracted to the case; therefore, duty could not be levied on goods covered under a multilateral trade agreements and the FTA, being an offshoot of General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, is to be regarded as multilateral agreement for the purposes of proviso to Section 18(5). The bench after hearing the argument dismissed the review petition.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2018

Comments

Comments are closed.