Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAZI versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI

Section 2 (RR), 168, 171, 186 and 180 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application for the purpose of capturing and seizing goods under the Intellectual Principle of Contemporary Concepts and seizure of goods under the Customs Act 1969 It was not necessary to be physically in custody for which a crime was committed or it was deemed to be in possession of the goods for the purpose of the Customs Act 1969. The goods happened in writing or by verbal instructions or as a result of the law prohibiting the owners of the property from owning it and for reasons which were indicated under Section 171, Customs Act 1969. A person whose physical or constructive possession was seized, the order / forfeiture of the confiscation order is not illegal and the issuance of a notice not to be issued two months after the consignment of goods under section 80, 80, Customs Act, 69 69 6969. Inside, the person from whose possession the goods were confiscated to return his goods, in the present case, the imports and taxes were regularly assessed, however, by the importer customs authorities. According to the review, export of goods was not allowed on payment of duty and tax and the showcase notice was also issued under section 180 of the Act which provides for section 168. (2) was beyond the two months I mentioned. Under the Customs Act, 1969, under the consideration of section 168 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969, the goods were theoretically seized, from the day the goods prices and taxes were assessed, because the importer was allowed Was not included in Sections 171 and 168 (2), the Customs Act, 1969 and became operative from the said date and are required to exist in the said provisions. power of attorney advocate Haroonabad lawyer