KARACHI: A local importer doing business in Hyderabad city challenged SRO 1637(I)/2024 dated 18.10.2024 which brought significant changes in field formations of Pakistan Customs across Pakistan.

The petitioner Haji Razzak made Federal Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division, Chairman FBR, Director of Customs Enforcement, Hyderabad, Collectorate of Customs Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi and Collectorate of Customs MCC, Hyderabad respondents in the petition.

The legality, validity, and vires of Notification No. S.R.O. 1637(I)/2024 dated 18 October 2024 issued under Section 3 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 30 and 31 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (the “Act of 1990”) was questioned.

As per memo of petition, Petitioner challenged the SRO to the extent of establishing the Directorate of Customs Enforcement, Hyderabad without adherence to the applicable legal provisions and has abruptly transferred the jurisdiction of customs-related matters concerning import cargo clearance from the Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad, to the Collectorate of Customs Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi.

The petitioner maintained that Petitioner has been engaged in import operations in the Hyderabad region and has operated under the jurisdiction of the Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad, where all customs-related processes for import cargo clearance have historically been managed.

It was contended that through S.R.O. 1637(I)/2024, Directorate of Customs Enforcement, Hyderabad was established and customs clearance jurisdiction was transferred from the Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad, to the Collectorate of Customs Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi. This restructuring, executed without lawful authority, is causing substantial disruption and hardship to the Petitioner and other importers within the Hyderabad region, the petitioner submits while appearing in person.

This section 3 of the 1969 Act and section 30 of the Act of 1990, authorizes appointments in relation to specific areas and designations but does not explicitly provide authority to create a new “Directorate” as an independent structural unit or designate officers to a new directorate within customs contends the petitioner.

He maintained that  Section 3 of the 1969 Act and Section 30 of the Act of 1990, authorizes the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to appoint, in relation to specified areas, persons to serve as Chief Collector of Customs, Collector of Customs, Collector of Customs (Appeals), Additional Collector of Customs, Assistant Collector of Customs, or officers of customs under other designations. The aforesaid provisions permit the appointment of individuals to designated positions, such as Chief Collector, Collector, Assistant Collector, and other officers. However, Section 3 does not authorize the establishment of new administrative units, such as a “Directorate,” as an independent structural entity. The creation of this new Directorate through the Impugned Notification, without explicit legislative authorization, exceeds the statutory powers vested in the FBR by the 1969 Act, and is ultra vires the parent statute, rendering the S.R.O. unlawful and void ab initio.

The notification discriminates against importers in Hyderabad by placing an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on them in comparison to importers operating in other jurisdictions, without any legitimate justification, the petitioner maintained adding that altering the  jurisdiction from Hyderabad to Karachi lacks reasonable justification, as the Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad, was functioning effectively. This jurisdictional shift, requiring importers to engage with customs authorities approximately 200 kilometers away, is not only impractical but also significantly escalates travel requirements and operational expenses, undermining business efficiency and causing undue hardship.

The petitioner prays that  impugned Notification No. S.R.O. 1637(I)/2024 be declared ultra vires of the Customs Act, 1969, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to Quash Notification No. S.R.O. 1637(I)/2024 dated 18 October 2024, thereby permanently restraining the Respondents from implementing or enforcing any transfer of jurisdiction of customs-related matters from the Collectorate of Customs MCC, Hyderabad, to the Collectorate of Customs

Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin  Qasim, Karachi, and direct the Respondents to restore the jurisdiction of the Collectorate of Customs MCC, Hyderabad, for processing all customs-related matters pertaining to the Petitioner and other importers in the Hyderabad region or in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, if the withdrawal of the Impugned Notification No. S.R.O. 1637(I)/2024 dated 18 October 2024 is not deemed feasible, it is humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may direct the Respondents to depute customs officials from the Collectorate of Customs Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi, to the Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad, for a minimum of three days per week thereby restoring the jurisdiction of the Collectorate of Customs MCC, Hyderabad, for the processing of all customs- related matters concerning the Petitioner and other importers operating in the Hyderabad region.

The bench heard the petitioner at length asking him that how he is aggrieved by the impugned notification and what is his locus standi. The bench then granting accompanying applications directed the petitioner to satisfy the bench on maintainability of the petition on next date of hearing to be fixed in due course.