Find a Lawyer

MESSRS SADIQ BROTHERS POULTRY versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (CUSTOMS), RAILWAY STATION LAHORE

Under section 25, 81, 193, 194A and 196 Customs Value (Determination of Import Goods) Rules, 1999, R4 Section RO No. 1369 (1) 199 dated 24 12 1999, the Authority shall declare the value of the Goods Refused to accept. 131 00 US $ 151 per metric ton, but another importer decided in December 1998 on the bill of entry to declare a cost of import consignment as US $ 170 that the appellant had before the First Appellate Authority. Failed, but upon further appeal, the Tribunal directed that it adopt the cost of all goods at US $ 151 per metric ton, based on a bill of entry bill filed by one of the appellants on 28 April 1999. Was instructed to leave but earlier the minority department did not produce a legally acceptable basis for determining the cost of goods. It was. Neither the earlier submissions made in connection with the purchase of goods by an importer during the season nor the tribunal on the credibility allowed partial relief on the basis of the estimate of imports into the country. The general trend by the Department for the imposition of any dishonest concert between different importers at different rates given by the importers, which range from US $ 130 to US $ 151 per metric ton, was indicated in December. In the first quarter of 1998 or 1999, as such, the Customs Value (Imported Goods Pricing) Rules, 1999, 24 12 1999 And was informed, was not suitable for reference and relied on R 4 is not despair of the rules. The effect was that the tribunal failed to rule on the claims of the appellants because of the revenue tax advocates from Phoolnagar (Bhai Pheru) lawyer