CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 2068/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 8TH MARCH, 2002. versus CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 2068/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 8TH MARCH, 2002.
Sections 17, 156 (I) (8) (9), 168 (2) and 180 Section RO 1374 (I) / 98, dated 17 12 1998 Section RO No. 913 (I) / 86, dated 5 10 1986 And the impugned goods, imposed on violation of section 15 or section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969, were seized on the ground that no one participated in the hearing nor received a written response to show cause and show cause notice. The allegations I set forth are true. The accuracy is related to the fact that the relevant party did not contest the showcase notice, the fact that the allegations made in such showcase notice have been proved that the law was heard after the parties heard and received the documents. According to the order was set aside for fresh decision. They may prefer to submit an Adjustment Officer through the Appellate Tribunal to approve a speaking order for the right reasons for dealing with all aspects raised by the Appellate Tribunal.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
advocate for immigration from Vehari lawyer
