Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO.849 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 10TH NOVEMBER, 2003. versus APPEAL NO.849 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 10TH NOVEMBER, 2003.

Sections 156 (9) (14), 16 and 32 Sections RO 1374 (I) / 98, dated 17 12 1998 Section RO 374 (I) / 2002, Dated 15 6 2002 Penalties for BOP plastic films Stock lots were found to be of quality. Since the standard was seized against standard goods, the exemption amount was equal to 15% of the excluded value of the release, in addition to payment of duties and taxes, the penalty was also equal to 15% on the violation of section 16. was done. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, ignoring the fact that the other 11 items choose the first diagnosis to confirm all aspects through physical examination, as if it had removed itself from its clutches. ? The law regarding the act of misinterpretation of any kind since its declaration was subject to the examination of the goods and in these circumstances it cannot be held liable for any misdemeanor action in respect of G.K. In the terms of Sections 16 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, the imposition of fines equal to 15% in the Odes, de Facto terms defies the spirit of Section RO 1374 (I) / 98, 17 12 1998. Section R 374 (I) / 2002, dated 15 6 2002 was not justified in imprisonment, the appellate tribunal set aside the order to the extent of imposing a 15 order penalty. jobs for advocates from Hala lawyer