Find a Lawyer

AGHA MUHAMMAD versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR,PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS

Authorities intervened in 1998 in order to prove the failure to maintain properly imported goods to the confiscated goods, appeals to sections 156 (2), 187 and 196 of the Customs Act 1969 By proving that the consignment had entered into the Bill of Entry in 1994, the authorities refused to accept the entry of the Bill under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969, and the appellate tribunal released the seized goods. Against the applicant, since it had submitted the bill of entry, therefore, the prosecution had a duty to prove the offense against the appellant There were four years of legal gaps in the registration certificate of a dependent and equipment seized appeal. The burden is too great on the appellant to prove that he puts the seized / seized needles on nuts. In the year 1994 where no such evidence was presented by the appellant, the appellant failed to exclude the burden placed on it under section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969, the appellate tribunal argued the appellant's argument Correctly denied when the confiscated goods were hidden. The bill entry, which was filed with importers and exporters under section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969, was required to maintain accounts in relation to imported or exported goods, except that the goods were unsafe private. Imported / Exported for Personal Purposes The appellant did not, at any stage, present any account or stock register of the imported goods under the Bill of Entry entered in 1994 and thereby appeal pakistani advocates Fateh Pur lawyer