Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. CUS.273/PB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 27TH FEBRUARY, 2004. versus APPEAL NO. CUS.273/PB OF 2003, DECIDED ON 27TH FEBRUARY, 2004.

Responsible for the imposition of Sections 168 (2), 16, 2 (s), 156 (2) (8) (90) and 171 Imports and Exports (Control) Act, (XXXXX of 1950), Section 3 (1). The Laboratory of the Customs Act, 1969, reported that the vehicle was confiscated in violation of the provisions of section 2 (h) and 16 and it was stated that the original chase frame was cut in place of the chassis number. And a cut piece of the existing chassis-numbered metal frame was replaced by the appellant and the appellant claimed that no notice was given under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 and section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 ( 2) Prior to the notice of confiscation under the chemical report, the date of submission of the same Period of two months after it was released. Under Section 168 (2) of the Customs Act 1968, a notice of confiscation of the vehicle was issued after the expiry of two months of the confiscation of the vehicle, but the original date of confiscation was, to hide or conceal, the date of recovery and confiscation. Mock Posted immigration advocate from Risalpur lawyer