Sometimes the most sensible thing a litigant can do is agree that the judgment below was wrong. In the customs reference against M/s Mian Shafiq Business International (540 of 2022), both sides made a joint statement before the Sindh High Court (Justice Agha Faisal, author; Justice Shah Nawaz Memon) that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was inconsistent with law.
The bench accepted the joint statement, set aside the judgment, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, directing a copy of the order to the Customs Appellate Tribunal under section 196(10) of the Customs Act, 1969. The reference was thus allowed — in favour of the applicant department — by consent.
There is a practical wisdom here that junior lawyers should absorb early. Defending an indefensible judgment through years of reference litigation serves no one: not the client, who pays for delay, and not the system, which carries the backlog. A consent remand — conceding the error and sending the case back for a correct decision — saves years and focuses the fight where it belongs: on the fresh adjudication.
For importers facing departmental references, this case also shows that the department itself will concede a bad Tribunal judgment rather than defend it to the bitter end. And for the department's counsel, it models professional candour. Ghalat faislay ka difa karne se behtar hai use tasleem karke durust karwana — and the High Court will always facilitate an honest reset.