COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX versus ABDUL RASHID
Sections 2 (s) (i) (ii) (iii), 156 (1) (89), 168 (2) and 180 were arrested on charges of defrauding evidence and smuggling 577 yards of foreign cloth. Was charged but the trial court acquitted. This was verified even though the smuggled goods were seized by the police but were not transferred to the customs authorities, resulting in any notice provided under section 168 of section 180 of the Customs Act 1969 Was not produced on the accused within the period. 2) The Customs Act, 1969, filed a trial court for the return of the goods, which was accepted and returned to the accused, for charges of such defect, for confiscation of confiscated goods. Ordered, the goods recovered from the accused were not specified. The goods are listed in Sections 2 (s) (i) and (ii) of the Customs Act 1969, nor was it a matter of the prosecution that the goods were brought in the country by illegal means, so that they could be classified as smuggled goods. Under section 2 (s) (iii) of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, the goods cannot be treated as smuggled goods and no offense was committed under section 156 (1) (89) of the Customs Act 1969, The value of the seized goods was below the specified limit, as such a trial court correctly stated that the case did not fall within the scope of the smuggling equipment described under section 2 (s) of the Customs Act 1969 and the Customs Act 1969 The provisions of section 156 (1) (89) were not attracted to the accused. The trial court declared the reasons for the acquittal of the accused and the authorities failed to state that any extradition was reached by the trial court. Legal process or result of the scope of the problem. The High Court upheld the Tr
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2013
