Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.K-779 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 20TH,SEPTEMBER, 2004. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.K-779 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 20TH,SEPTEMBER, 2004.

Section 26, 156 (1) CL (89) and 194 Appeal for the Seizure Appeal Tribunal Responding Authority raided the appellant's premises on specific notice that such beetle nuts were smuggled, the Authority Accordingly, he was arrested and removed from his office. The raiding party said that there were other things in the operation, under which the personnel of the Directorate had initiated proceedings under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, of which they had neither information nor information. Nor was the raiding operation done for this purpose. Under investigation, the Directorate prepared a report of violation of the appellant and on this basis a show cause notice was issued to the appellant under which the appellant was asked to furnish record documentary evidence for the legal import of the goods. ? There is no inquiry or information pending in connection with the disputed goods; a notice of detention was issued to the appellant for two days on the possession of beetle nuts and proceedings under section 26 of the Customs Act 1969 when It was stated that there was no reason for detaining the goods, nor was it specified in any detention notice nor were these cells disclosed, even if there was any suspicion of illegal commission, Details should be provided to the applicant to provide all documentation and the opportunity to disclose information, Pbuh appeal was launched against a police did not do anything, but investigators discovered it on the net to save any charges. , The documents sought for the appellant showed that the legal imports were justified. immigration advocate from Mohen Jo Daro lawyer