Find a Lawyer

ROSE COLOUR LABORATORIES NAYAB NO. 1 (PVT.) LTD versus CHAIRMAN, C.B.R.

Section 32 (2) (3) Section R530 (I) / 90, Dated 7 6 1990 Customs Tariff Section Notice V to XVI Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Application Under Article 32 (2) of Customs Duty Cause Notice ()), the Customs Act, 69 69 6969, did not allege that the small price was due to a misrepresentation or misrepresentation by the importer on a certificate or other document or Was due to a statement that was inaccurate in any content specific. Or because of an affidavit, it is merely stated in the notice that in the case of import of goods, the minor was levied on prices because the customs duty was charged on 50 duty under PCT Heading 9010 1090. had gone. Sales tax @ of 50 instead of free which clearly indicates that this is the result of ignorance, misunderstanding or misunderstanding by the customs department and was not due to misrepresentation or misrepresentation or to the importer. Wrong documents were submitted by the Department, all import related documents were submitted to the department which ordered the goods to be made offensive, misinterpreted or misunderstood, part of the department cleared of duty exemptions. Relevant official records appeared on the post-import inspection of the document, which revealed that the Customs Tariff's Section Note V The article articles are not exempt under section RV 530 (I) / 90 dated 7 6 1990. The notice of reason was not mentioned anywhere in the importer's misrepresentation, misrepresentation or any infringement which resulted in the missing the customs authority show casino notice, in the circumstances, section 32 (2), the Customs Act , Was not under 1969. But the aforementioned one law firms from Malakand lawyer