Background of the Appeal:A company that is solely focused on exports, Sarwar Garments Ltd., has filed challenges against two orders. Writ Petition No. 2718 of 2001, the first, challenges a ruling that forbids the delivery of imported goods until a “no objection” clearance has been received. In the second, they challenge the suspension of their license to operate a bonded warehouse (Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2001). The corporation is facing issues stemming from accusations of tax fraud and irregularities. In order to address these orders, Sarwar Garments Ltd is taking legal action in an effort to make things clear and get back to business as usual.
issues:Sarwar Garments Ltd., the petitioner, claims that the orders they are contesting violated their fundamental rights and were unlawful and arbitrary. They contend that these directives were malevolent in addition to discriminatory, with the evident goal of impeding their legitimate business operations. On the other hand, the respondent argues that the directives were given in response to preliminary inquiries that turned up anomalies. They use the Customs Act’s sections 13(2)(b) and 13(3) as justification for their activities.
Judgment:In Writ Petition No. 2718 of 2001, the pertinent ruling (Annexure “G”) was rendered moot since further orders allowed the release of merchandise backed by a bank guarantee. The order dated 19-6-2001 (Annexure ‘M’) was decided partially in favor of the petitioner.Going forward, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2968 of 2001 contested the suspension of their Bonded Warehouse License. The petitioner said that the license could only be revoked in the event of an Act violation, a claim they felt lacked evidence for. But the court determined that under section 13(2)(b) of the Act, the Commissioner of Customs might suspend a license while an investigation was conducted. The court rationalized that the suspension order was necessary to stop future revenue loss and criminal activity while it conducted a preliminary investigation into major anomalies, which formed the basis of the suspension order. Under section 13(3) of the Act, the court determined that the suspension order was legitimate and lawful. Although claims of irregularities and refusal to reply to show cause notices were noted, it was not possible to fully explore the factual components of the case under Writ Jurisdiction.The court further explained that although Section 111 permits the imposition of fines and duties for the unlawful removal of goods, it does not confer the power to revoke a bonded warehouse license. As a result, the court maintained the legality of the suspension of the Bonded Warehouse License and rejected the petitioner’s attorney’s position.
comments:Mr. Amir-ul Islam, the counsel for the petitioner, contended throughout the trial that the orders violated fundamental rights and were unlawful and discriminatory. He said that these instructions were intended to hinder legitimate trade and highlighted the misuse of authority by highlighting a disregard for protocol.