Find a Lawyer

KAMIL KHAN versus COMMANDANT, MASHAL RIFLES

Judgment by Appellate Tribunal of Customs Act 1969 Sections 2 (a), 179 and 181 Sections RO 1374 (I) / 98, dated 17 12 1998 Adjunct Authority, Appellate Authority imposing penalties and confiscation of goods. Was not covered. The terms of authority described under section 2 (a) of the Customs Act, 1969, as it was the appellate authority for the cases set out under section 179 of the Appellate Tribunal of the Customs Act, 1969, while deciding the appeal, legality and ownership Had to see. Appealed against this order and then passed an order as it deems appropriate, confirming, amending or canceling that the appellate tribunal must see that the direct confiscation order (in lieu of confiscation in terms of the first option, to pay Germany) Without the option of (according to section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969) was a lawful and appropriate order and whether such a case applies in section RO 1374 (I) / 98 dated 17 12 1998, to the facts of C Was applied? Ase Syed Notification was issued in terms of the provisions of section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969, and, therefore, when such authorized subordinate legislation is made, when it is notified and as part of this Act itself. Would like to read if it was not inconsistent. The report of the Act was in accordance with the provisions of Section 181 of the Section 131 (1) / 98 of the Customs Act, 1969, and was, therefore, to be read as part of section 181 of the Offset Appellate Tribunal. Under the Customs Act, deciding the appeal, the provisions of section 5 181 of the Act cannot be expected to be enforced, while simultaneously, ignoring its provisions and subordinate legislation, Section RO 1374 ( 1) / 98 in the form of 17 12 1998 only on the basis that it top civil advocates from Abbottabad lawyer