MUHAMMAD SAEED versus COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR
Article 2 (s), 156 (1) (89) and 187 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The High Court upholds the order of the confiscation of imported black tea in the truck owned by the applicants while processing the post-remand. ? Appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector (judiciary) and with the observation that the tea was foreign in the dispute and that it was brought to Pakistan without payment of customs duty and smugglers believed the applicants. The disputed tea was purchased from the local market and there is no evidence to support the allegation that the police seized the tea, which was a foreigner who was brought to Pakistan by unauthorized means without payment of duty and Article 2 The definition of smuggling under the (s) was covered under the definition. The Customs Act, 1969, the department responsible for the seizure, claimed that the tea was smuggled and properly confiscated as it was brought to Pakistan without payment of customs duty. To consider the questions, what is the evidence of the origin of the seized black tea which was brought to Pakistan without duty and will be smuggled under section 2 (second) of the Customs Act 1969? Whether the sale of black tea, such as smuggling and seizure, was banned in the open market, and its transportation was banned in large quantities in the country or on a large scale. But there will be such tea or such constipation. Proof of this being smuggled. Whether, under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969, the Department has the initial burden of proving the smuggling of goods
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
