GHULAM NABI versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MEMBER CUSTOMS (LEGAL) REVENUE DIVISION FBR, ISLAMABAD
Sections 156 and 157 of section RO 574 (I) / 2005 dated 6 6 2005 [as amended by section RO 499 (I) / 09 dated 13 6 2009] Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional application forfeiture of goods seized Older and used service releases are auto parts under section RO 574 (I) / 2005, with the benefit of 6 2005 2005 (as amended by section RO 499/2009 dated 13 6 2009) section RO The earlier effect of the scope petitioners regrets the order under which they were denied the benefit of amending section RO 499 (I) / 2009 dated 13 6 2009 for the return of goods on payment of a fine on the basis that The foregoing effect does not apply to section R above Can be given because it has come into existence after the seizure of the applicants \ Apart from the goods dispute customs authorities, it was also stated that amending section R could not be given due effect as the applicant's case was past and closed. As a transaction, the legitimate process of confiscating the goods is still pending before the Supreme Court. When the court amended section RRO 499 (I) / 2009 of 13 2009, and because of this, the argument that the present case was past and there was no emphasis on closed deal, the present case was still pending when it was special. Was withdrawn as intended. The amendment to the Law Enforcement Section RO can give applicants a chance to benefit from it, a notification, rule or executive order if it goes to the relief of the taxpaying applicant, therefore, Advantage Section ROS High Court directs customs officials to extend the option of compensating applicants for the payment of fines, such as Section R
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
