Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.K-793 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 3RD JANUARY, 2005. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.K-793 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 3RD JANUARY, 2005.

Sections 156 (1) (8), 180, 194 A & 215 of the appellant appealed to the appellate tribunal authority to seize the goods belonging to the appellant, alleged to be of Korean and Indonesian origin, While the appellant claimed that the disputed goods were of Pakistani origin, the first was seized by the appellate tribunal as a separate piece, the second court order was also approved by the former parliament, which was earlier confirmed by the appellate forum, both orders. He was silent on the merits of the case and no evidence was presented to hold any officer to establish foreign origin. The seized goods and advertising officer said only on confiscated combat grounds that in fact the said goods (cloth) were seized far beyond the limits of Pakistan and such cloth was available in open markets across the country, The act of smuggling or possessing smuggled goods must be beyond a reasonable doubt, but in the present case it was unnecessarily hasty to dispose of the matter and not to follow it as per the requirements of section 215 of the Customs Act 1969, notice. Or adjusting officers' standards regarding the standards set up to check whether or not to send a callup letter. The order was imposed and the order was not guaranteed by the law passed by the former party if it was not served properly. No procedure was adopted in this case when the goods seized in this case were auctioned without following the legal procedure and the appellant was constantly denied the right to a permanent trial. The mistake was made and the law was not guaranteed. Authorities c law firms from Silanwala lawyer