I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This case involves a dispute between Wint Corporation (Steel Importer) and the FBR, etc regarding imported steel goods. The goods were put on hold after an examination, with allegations of mis-declaration and violation of sections 32 and 32A of the Customs Act, 1969 for G.D. No. 808. The Customs alleged that "Prime Quality Galvalume Steel in Coils" was concealed underneath.

2. For G.D. No. 378, the petitioner's counsel stated that no show-cause notice was issued, while the Customs counsel indicated a contravention report was being processed and a notice was likely soon.

3. The petitioner's main concern was that the Customs was not allowing the goods to be moved to a bonded warehouse, while adjudication proceedings were ongoing, leading to demurrage charges.

4. The petitioner imported "Secondary Quality Electrolytic Tin Plate Steel Sheets in Coils" and "Galvalume Steel Sheet in Coils of Secondary Quality".

5. The goods were put on hold after an examination, with allegations of mis-declaration and violation of u/s 32 and 32A of the Customs Act, 1969 for G.D. No. 808. The Customs alleged that "Prime Quality Galvalume Steel in Coils" was concealed underneath.

6. The SHC Karachi directed Respondent No. 2 (Collector of Customs-East) to process forthwith the petitioner's request for moving the goods into bond in line with section 86 of the Customs Act, 1969. This decision was based on the fact that the goods were not prohibited, had already been examined, and the electronic GDs or separate applications served as a request for warehousing.

II. DETAILS

A.  Reference of Issue & Brief Facts

1. Further to KQU 3545 of 12.9.25, being an important matter, we would inform you about Wint Corporation (Steel Importer) VS FOP & others, etc - CP D – 4103/2025 - SHC* (Attachment 286.1) in the insuring paragraph bold & Underline.

2. The Petitioner entered G.D. No. KEWB IB-808-15-7-25 and G.D. No KEWB-IB-3078-4-7-25 u/s 79 of the Customs Act, 1969 [Act] for warehousing imported goods declared as “Secondary Quality Electrolytic Tin Plate Steel Sheets in Coils” and “Galvalume Steel Sheet in Coils of Secondary Quality”. The GDs were assessed accordingly by the Customs u/s 80 of the Act, however, the goods were then put on hold pursuant to an examination.

B.  Show-Case Notice and Custom position

With regards to G.D. No. 808, show-cause notice dated 5.8.25 was issued to the Petitioner alleging mis-declaration and violation of sections 32 and 32A of the Act on grounds inter alia that the coils were rolled to conceal underneath “Prime Quality Galvalume Steel in Coils”.Regards G.D. No. 378, Petitioner’s counsel states that no show-cause notice has been issued to justify a hold on the goods. However, counsel for the Customs states that a contravention report was prepared but had to be sent back with queries which has now been resubmitted and a show-cause notice is likely to be issued any time.

C.  Petitioner Submissions

Before SHC, the Petitioner did not seek any intervention in adjudication proceedings pending before the Customs. Its grievance is that while those proceedings are on-going, the Customs is not allowing the Petitioner to move the goods to a bonded warehouse, and as a result the Petitioner is incurring demurrage charges day-to day. Needless to state that moving the goods to a bonded warehouse does not amount to delivery to the importer. Since the goods in question are not prohibited or restricted items and have already been examined for the purposes of making a contravention report, counsel for Customs is queried why the goods are not being allowed to be moved into bond when GDs are already entered for warehousing. He concedes that there is no further reason to detain the goods at the port and states that the Petitioner may make an application to the Collector of Customs u/s 84 of the Act for an order to move the goods into bond.

D.  Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Responds

 Learned counsel for the Petitioner responded that by virtue of the second proviso to section 84 where a GD for warehousing is entered through the Customs Computer System, that in itself is an application for warehousing the goods and no further application is required to be made. There is some force in that submission as the electronic form of the subject GDs incorporates a request for warehousing. However, for present purposes we need not dwell on that aspect as the record reflects that the Petitioner had also made separate applications for moving the goods into bond vide letters dated 16.7.25, 22.7.25 and 24.7.25which remain pending.

E.  Court Decision

In view of the foregoing, SHC disposed of this petition by directing the Respondent No.2 to process forthwith the Petitioner’s request for moving the subject goods (mentioned first above) into bond in line with section 86 of the Act.

III. FURTHER DETAILS & SERVICE

Should you require any clarification or explanations in respect of the above or otherwise, or require Income Tax, Federal & Provincial Sales Tax or Withholding Tax Statement, Advisory, Return Filing or Review services, please feel free to email Mr Amsal at amsal@kasbati.co with CC to info.kasbati@professional-excellence.com, asif.s.kasbati@professional-excellence.com.

Best regards for Here & Hereafter

Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB)

Managing Partner 

Kasbati & Co (1400+ Tax, Levies, Companies, Economy, Inflation, HR, Banking, Finance, etc

Quick Commentary Service Provider and High Level 440+ Tax & Levies Laws Consultants) 

Head of Tax & Professional Excellence Services (Symbols of High Quality Practical Tax, Levies & Corporate Training for Beginners to High Levels' Professionals) 

PTCL: 92-21-34329108 Mobile: 0334 322 3161 Website: kasbati.co Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/taxexcellence/ 

Google Map link: Tax Excellence  YouTube Channel Tax Excellence