Since the Customs Act stands extended to GB, all the duties under the said Act (customs duties, regulatory duties, additional customs duties, etc.) will be collected on all imports through the Customs Station at Sost, regardless of intended use. FBR reiterates that these measures collectively provide a strong, technology-driven, and enforceable framework to prevent leakage or misuse of tax-exempt goods. The business community and traders across Pakistan are assured that the exemption regime is carefully designed, closely monitored, and will not harm fair competition or legitimate trade interests in the rest of the country—FBR’s press release of December 30, 2025.

What is unfolding in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) today is not a technical dispute over customs procedures or tax exemptions. It is a perpetual constitutional crisis disguised as fiscal administration. The Federal Board of Revenue’s insistence that the Customs Act “stands extended” to GB and that all duties will be collected at the Sost Customs Post “regardless of intended use” is emblematic of a deeper malaise: the exercise of sovereign power without constitutional validity, and governance without citizenship.

This is not how constitutional democracies function. It is how emperors or dictators behave, even when a country has a written constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Civil Aviation Authority v Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan and others [PLD 2019 Supreme Court 357], while referring to Article 257 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (“the Constitution”), noted: Therefore there can be no prejudice to Pakistan’s position on the plebiscite issue if the men, women and children living in GB are guaranteed basic human rights and a role in their own governance within a framework of a constitutional nature. Indeed, full rights for the people of GB can only bolster Pakistan’s case for the right of self-determination for all the people of Kashmir.

When Imprecision Replaces Truth: The Quiet Power Of Selective Journalism

It is unfortunate that even after the lapse of 78 years and clear judgments of the superior courts, the residents of GB are deprived of their fundamental rights and, for decades, have been victims of the high-handedness of the FBR.

The constitutional position is clear. Article 1(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (“the Constitution”) defines the territory of Pakistan. Gilgit-Baltistan is not included in it. This omission is not accidental, nor has it been cured by any constitutional amendment comparable to the 25th Constitutional Amendment, which absorbed the former Federally and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (FATA/PATA) into the federation and extended federal laws passed by Parliament by omitting Article 247 of the Constitution.

GB’s governance continues to rest on executive orders and administrative arrangements, not constitutional incorporation. This single fact has far-reaching consequences. Federal laws apply by default only within the territory defined by Article 1(2) of the Constitution; otherwise, the State must demonstrate a constitutionally valid mechanism for extension. Administrative........

© The Friday Times