Find a Lawyer

RAVI AUTOS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE versus CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH-III, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE

Importer had imported two goods of goods in the Customs Act 1969 section 25 (1) (2) 1973 Customs Value Letter No. 173/98 VII / 17083 Customs General Order No. 25, 96 According to the entries listed, the announced price of the goods for the entry bills was ? 160, which was assessed at $ 450 for the pending PMT goods in question, and Assistant Collector Customs issued found that the goods The usual price was p350p ? PMT importer, to confirm that the rest of the duty and tax pay tribunal had confirmed the order of assistant collector customs. There was nothing on record that the customs authorities had finally agreed to at any stage with the announced price of the goods, as was provided in the admission bill. The assistant collector customs was temporarily released. That he should make the final assessment in the light of the evidence presented to him and the evidence found in his favor stated that the Authority is the controller of customs (invoice) 's invoice, which is the physical import of the same kind of goods. Was based on the evidence of the Assistant Collector of Customs Importer, who had not previously presented any contradictory evidence. Such goods were imported to the appellant tribunal before the Assistant Collector Customs or earlier at a price announced in the importer's bill entry contention that he was taken by evidence as a result of which he was taken by surprise. The record was not based on evidence based on the fact that the existing findings of fact were not contrary to the evidence on record by the courts less than authorized jurisdiction and there was no question of law to guarantee interference. immigration advocates phone number from Pindi bhohri lawyer