SHC directs Customs authorities to decide fate of imported almonds from US

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Customs authorities to decide the fate of 20.412 metric tons of shelled almonds imported from the United States under the custom laws and relevant import policy as soon as possible.

The direction came on the petition of an importer who had moved the high court against holding of a shelled almonds consignment by the Customs authorities. A counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had imported 20.412 metric tons of US-origin almonds and filed a goods declaration on April 9, 2024.

He submitted that the phytosanitary certificate as required was however issued much earlier for the subject consignment by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 29, 2024 in the name of the petitioner’s business.

He submitted that Customs officials held the subject consignment for the reason that necessary import permit number was not endorsed in the phytosanitary certificate issued by USDA, as objected and informed by the quarantine department.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the import permit and shipment was made on the same date and at the same time and the change of dates appeared because of the time-zone difference and hence it was not a violation of either import policy, import permit or any of the conditions or provisions of the 1976 Act and the Quarantine Rules 2019 framed thereunder.

He submitted that the consignment was inspected and fumigated with methyl bromide on April 17, 2024 with the observation that no insect, disease or noxious weeds were intercepted and it was not marked for treatment.

He submitted that despite there being no hazardous situation, release of the consignment was denied for non-endorsement of an import permit number on the phytosanitary certificate issued by USDA.

An assistant attorney general submitted that the plant protection adviser and director general of the department of plant protection (DPP) under the rules may prescribe phytosanitary import conditions for the import of agriculture goods in Pakistan in terms of the Rule 96(10) of the Quarantine Rules. He submitted that these conditions were required to be fulfilled in the country of origin/export, prior to the export/shipment as per phytosanitary import conditions of DPP of the country where goods are being imported and guidelines of international plant protection convention (IPCC) and Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), which is claimed to have been overlooked at the time of shipment.

A division bench of the SHC headed by Acting Chief Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that it may not be a strict requirement under the rules that the nomenclature of import permit must be endorsed in the phytosanitary certificate of the country of origin but perhaps the wisdom behind was that the consignment must have seen all the prerequisites and tests required before the goods could be shipped to a country.

The SHC observed that if we were to score off such requirement of endorsing the number of import permit, even then the phytosanitary certificate and/or its attachments issued by the country of origin must reflect on its own all the required tests and prerequisites desired in the import permit, as only then the import conditions could be said to have been met.

The bench observed that phytosanitary certificate of the USDA did not disclose if the consignment was subjected to all such tests, compliance with which was obligatory upon shipper/country of origin, under the import permit of the importing country i.e. Pakistan.

The high court observed that more importantly the phytosanitary certificate of USDA was issued on January 29 which was much before the date of import permit issued to the petitioner, which was February 10.

The SHC observed that the importer was aware of the prescribed conditions to import the regulated goods (shelled almonds) notwithstanding the fact that number of import permit was not reflected in the phytosanitary certificate of the country of origin, and the importer must have ensured that at least it must reflect that prescribed tests had been undertaken on January 29, 2024, the date when the phytosanitary certificate was issued by the USDA.

The SHC observed that it was a requirement that the import of such goods shall be restricted/subject to the conditions prescribed in the import permit. The bench observed that several sections of the Customs Act dealt with the power to prohibit and restrict import and export of goods and in the instant case, Customs officials had only held the goods and not passed an order as required under the Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1969 that whether on account of such deviation and in the light of the methyl bromide test/fumigation having been performed and certificate of physical inspection having been issued by the department of plant protection, the subject consignment could be subjected to the detention, seizure, confiscation or could be subjected to the fine/penalty only or otherwise.

The high court directed the Customs officials to exercise their powers under the Customs Act, 1969 read with the Imports & Exports (control) Act, 1950 further read with the current import policy order and decide the fate of the subject consignment of the petitioner at the earliest.