Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. 543/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 15TH JUNE, 2005. versus APPEAL NO. 543/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 15TH JUNE, 2005.

Cars imported under Sections 19, 20, 21, 32 (2), 156 (1) (10A) (11) (14) (19) and 194A Section RQ 506 (I) / 88, 26 26 1988 Sale of diplomatic immunity duty and tax payment and appellate tribunal question about the imposition of penalties Appeal Embassy sold without obtaining prior approval of the Foreign Affairs and Central Board of Revenue, and so on An unauthorized person was using a clear violation. 6 50 I (I) /, 88, dated 6 26 6 198 8 1988 According to Ad, the Adjustment Officer, in his order, ordered the car to be confiscated, leaving the car in case of payment of duties and taxes at the time of sale. To be taken, however, the fine received in his fine was paid to the appellant / buyer of Rs 2 lakh of the car offered to pay the tax and pay the tax, which the offer authority accepted. But the dispute was whether six million fines were imposed because the compensation was in accordance with the law? The determination was not made in the case of a violation of the Information Section R506 (I) / 88 dated 26 26 1988. The findings, which were asked to deal with vehicles brought under diplomatic immunity, the notification revealed. That indirect or indirect, legal consequences were not presented under the Adjustment Authority, shall see the express or applicable provisions of any other law / regulation under Section 10 (a) of the Customs Act, 1969 or Section 156 of the Customs Act 1969 Which dealt with exemptions granted under Sections 19 and 20 of the Customs Act 1969. The waiver granted to the recommenders applied to section 32 (2) of the Customs Act 1969 when the breach was proved, but the diplomat and the procurement online advocate from Chicha watni lawyer