Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.714/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 26TH OCTOBER, 2004. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.714/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 26TH OCTOBER, 2004.

Additional collector under section 156 (1) 89/90 of the Customs Act, 1969 in connection with sections 156 (1) 89/90 and 194 of smuggling a vehicle that the same appellant was smuggling. Was seized by an order passed by. It was smuggled into the country without paying any tax. The appellant challenged the order to confiscate the car in the appeal that the documents in the record have proved that the under-served vehicle is legally owned by the appellant as its registration is in his name. The appellant also claimed that there was nothing on record to believe that the vehicle had any other number available if the import documents were not presented on the spot or during investigation. The vehicle was smuggled in because of a foreign item. Somehow or by any means they were brought from abroad to import something legally so that the import documents would be the best. nce In the absence of import documents from any office, then a report from the Franz Science Laboratory may be sought which would be secondary evidence to assist in the matter which was the difference found by the investigating staff in the present case. The car model was different. He said that contradiction was not sufficient to declare the vehicles smuggled as it was stated that contradiction itself is not a good proof otherwise the applicant's claim on the strength of the document has been substantiated in the record. Appellant's case has been settled without providing the best evidence for the record. By Additional Collector (Judiciary) immigration advocates email from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer