CUSTOMS APPEALS NOS. 1668/LB AND 1669/1-13 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 24TH MAY, 2004. versus CUSTOMS APPEALS NOS. 1668/LB AND 1669/1-13 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 24TH MAY, 2004.
Section 25 [as amended by the Finance Ordinance (XXI of 2000)] Applicable Equipment Transaction Prices Accessory was legally obliged to notify the customs officer about the reservation in the transaction and justify the cost. Given the opportunity to justify the difference between the importer's cost, such as the transaction value of the goods, the transaction value of the goods, the duty value, the compute value and the fallback meth applied under the same customs order. Compliance with the provisions of Section 25 (10) of the Act. , 1969 As such, the goods cannot be deducted from the transaction value.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
advocates from Dhatmal lawyer
