Find a Lawyer

C.A.NO. 1253/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 2ND MAY, 2003. versus C.A.NO. 1253/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 2ND MAY, 2003.

Section 17 and 156 (1) (8) for the detention and confiscation of goods in violation of section 15 or section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969, the request for release on the payment of taxes and payment of taxes imposed on foreign origin goods and its Excessive amounts of fine were seized, without allowing any option for their release. The appellate tribunal was unable to accept the appellate tribunal's release request before the adjudicating officer then failed to furnish any documents to show the legal import or legal possession of the seized goods. In view of the fact that the confiscated goods were confessed to foreign origin on the payment of taxable duty and taxes, their confiscation was rightly ordered without any option of their release and appellate tribunal. Although earlier such release was allowed, the goods on the duty payable and tax paid The modest amount of redemption money but no longer had the same jurisdiction because its practice was declared illegal and the High Court's appeal was dismissed. top advocate from Kala Shah Kaku lawyer