Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 108/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2004. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 108/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2004.

Sections 168, 156 (1) and CLS (89), (90) Section RO 374 (1) / 2002, Dated 15 6 2002 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Sections 471, 420 and 468 for the confiscation. Seizure of vehicles on the ground that the chassis number plate and another iron sheet were abnormally welded by appellant to the Collector of Customs House, according to a forensic science laboratory report. The Principal Operator approved and paid for the duty / tax. On the basis of such confirmation, the undercover vehicle was registered. The Adjudicating Officer overturned the said evidence and ordered the confiscation of the vehicle, which was in violation of the law, without proving the same liar. The seller was not the original importer who cleared the vehicle on payment. Duty / tax and he could not even duplicate the entry bill three times, being the forward or fifth buyer after the original importer when the registration bill, cash number and date, IGM number was given by the principal operator. This was confirmed to the Registration Authority and the Investigating Agency and these details were available on the transcript of the registration bill and the chase number was also on the vehicle along with the registration bill. , When it was subjected to a forensic science laboratory test and there was no other digit under the chassis plate other than that number, there was no doubt that the undercarriage vehicle was the one that was cleared on duty / tax payment. Failed to prove that the registration bill was either incorrect or that it was not connected to the existing vehicle The order was set aside and the appeal was accepted by the appellate tribunal. ask a advocate free from Jaffarabad lawyer