AIRLINK 74.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-0.8%)
BOP 5.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.97%)
CNERGY 4.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.33%)
DFML 35.84 Increased By ▲ 2.84 (8.61%)
DGKC 88.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.80 (-0.9%)
FCCL 22.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-1.55%)
FFBL 32.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.15%)
FFL 9.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.81%)
GGL 10.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.74%)
HBL 115.90 Increased By ▲ 0.59 (0.51%)
HUBC 135.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.88 (-0.64%)
HUMNL 9.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-1.71%)
KEL 4.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.43%)
KOSM 4.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.06%)
MLCF 39.96 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (0.65%)
OGDC 137.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.11 (-0.8%)
PAEL 26.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-2.19%)
PIAA 26.10 Increased By ▲ 0.95 (3.78%)
PIBTL 6.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.32%)
PPL 122.80 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.05%)
PRL 26.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-1.15%)
PTC 14.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SEARL 58.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.77 (-1.29%)
SNGP 70.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-1.18%)
SSGC 10.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.38%)
TELE 8.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.04%)
TPLP 11.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-1.48%)
TRG 64.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.93 (-1.43%)
UNITY 26.06 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (1.01%)
WTL 1.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.42%)
BR100 7,841 Increased By 22.1 (0.28%)
BR30 25,454 Decreased By -123.3 (-0.48%)
KSE100 74,931 Increased By 266.7 (0.36%)
KSE30 24,146 Increased By 74.2 (0.31%)

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.