Find a Lawyer

C. A. NO.2353/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 23RD JANUARY, 2002. versus MALIK MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

Section 168 Occupation of Items Responsible for Seizure The Remote Control device seized remote controls that were not issued on the imported documents produced by the appellant, the traces and numbers of the seized remote controls were seized by the specified remote controls. The brand name was taken with the model. It was legally confiscated by Remote Controls with the brand name specific model written on the remote controls while the entry bill did not mention the brand, number and number of remote controls and depended on the appellant. Other documents contain no such documents in the Diva, in the absence of such identification marks and such particulars, the goods imported by the bill of entry and the other documents attached to the goods seized by the Appellant. It was not difficult to find, according to the appellate tribunal's order, no error was found. Which met the legal requirements of a valid order top advocate from Jhatta Bhutta lawyer