Find a Lawyer

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AFU, AIRPORT, LAHORE versus MESSRS TRIPPLE-M (PVT.) LTD.

Notification Section R561 (I) / 88, Dated 30 6 1988, Payment Limitation of Notice of Requirement under Section 32 (3) of the Regulatory Duty, Customs Act, 1969, approximately two months after the approval of the goods. On November 7, 1989, the authorities issued a notice of demand for the recovery of regulatory duty. After receiving the response of the importer, the authorities remained silent for about three years, when a hearing notice was issued to the importer on 31 8 1992. Authorities decided the case against the importer, but using superior constitutional jurisdiction, the court set aside the order issued by the authorities that the order was in fact irrational. Er, which was passed after authorities said they had legal notice was issued within the prescribed period. , While the second notice was just a notice to hear this case, a legal notice was issued less than two months after the consignment was cleared and thus was within time. On the 8th of August 1992, there was a notice of the hearing date that required the importer to be presented to the authorities so that the brief recovery as a regulatory duty was not issued, the notice of the hearing date was issued. There was no fresh show cause notice to do. Other notes should be treated as notices in continuation of the proceedings, which are already under showcase notices. Was started within time and only the notice of the date of hearing of this case was due to action by showcase notice. 1989, were well within time and were not affected by the limitation set out under section 32 (3) of the Customs Act, 1969, and were never dropped by the High Court order. famous lower court advocate from Khuiratta lawyer