Find a Lawyer

TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, RAWALPINDI versus GHUFRAN KHURSHEED IMTIAZI, ADVOCATE

Section 19 Section R No. 554 (I) dated 12 6 1998 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 interprets SRO No. 554 (I) exemption from Intra Court customs duty, dated 12 6 1998 machinery or Under the Additional Goods Notification, the importers took advantage of the notification claiming that the machinery imported by them was not manufactured locally and that it was compliant with Section RO No 554 (I) dated 12 6 1998. Was added under The machinery and spares that were imported on this basis were not kept under the provisions of the notification. No classification of machinery or spares was mentioned in the notification, which would be exempt from the import, the only relevant condition for taking advantage was the absence of local manufacture and the machinery for which purpose. And the spears had to be imported and he was under the actor. An impediment to enjoying the exemption granted by the importers, a portion of the conditions laid down by the importers in the notification where the machinery or spares were imported for the purpose mentioned in the notification and not manufactured locally. do not have. Notification Law completes any attempt to restrain the authority's powers or to increase the notification process by an executive order or to submit an opinion by the executive authority. Such process can only be implemented by amending the notification. ? In the Chambers of the High Court, the way in which counsel was advised by the Law Judge has rightly observed that the importers had obtained immunity in all four corners on 12-6 1998 pursuant to Section R No. 554 (I). advocate for immigration from Ziarat lawyer