Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.405/LB OF 2000, DECIDED 12TH AUGUST, 2004. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.405/LB OF 2000, DECIDED 12TH AUGUST, 2004.

Sections 19, 18 (2), 25/25B, 30 and 31A Section RO 279 (1) / 94, Dated 2 4 1994 Section R 530 (1) / 94, Dated 96 1994 Section RO 1050 (1) ) / 95, dated 29-10 1995 General authority to exempt from customs duty Regulatory duty refund Regulatory duty was obtained on the import of thermal power station plant and machinery Refund was refunded because of regulatory duty which is in section R 279 ( 1) / 94 Histories 2. 4 In 1994, the imported goods imported for increasing, balancing, modernizing and expanding power generation were exempted under section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 and were applicable for nail duty at the time of clearance. And in accordance with section RO 1050 (1) / 95, the disciplinary officer was properly charged in accordance with 29 1995 10 1995, the adjustment officer was justified in assuming that at the time of clearance when appellant was 65%. If duty was not imposed, the regulatory duty was properly charged. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on section 5 of the RO 1050 (1) / 9 on 5, dated 29-10 1995 on any of these goods. immigration advocates email from Gambet lawyer