ZAFAR ALI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Customs Rules 2001 R13 (b) Goods Rules, 1985, R10 (13) Import Export Policy Order, 1999 2000 Customs General Order No. 5 Office of Establishment, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 9 Levy. Personal Custom Duty Professional Equipment or Home Impact Photostat Machines Photostat Machines were seized so that they could be released on payment of customs duty on the basis that it was neither a personal clothing item nor a household effect because it was a professional equipment. Or there was no device. And in the trade agreement it was known as office supplies, which was the purpose of the customs general orders of the certification made by the appellate authority regarding the specific working conditions and job description and the duties and duties of the departmental officials. It was written down. Standing orders issued by collectors were not for the purpose of amending, amending or restricting the rules informed under customs law; where an order was to be issued for the guidance of the public as well as staff, the notice was issued on the import of goods Restrictions should be included in the bag rolls as passengers were not expected to know the rules of the department. Customs General Order No. 1966, without issuing a public notice and its prohibition policy was not considered valid in the Liberal Import Government, especially in the Goods Rule, with the introduction of free-standing liabilities, clearly There was a direct conflict with the notified baggage rolls and the Central Board of Revenue on 186 2001 observed that the complainant did not approve the photostat machines as a regular import. Instead
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
