Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. K-3 OF 2006, DECIDED ON 13TH FEBRUARY, 2006. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. K-3 OF 2006, DECIDED ON 13TH FEBRUARY, 2006.

Sections 16, 32, 4, 223 and 156 (1), Total (9) (14) Import and Export (Control) Act (XNXIx 1950), Section 5 (3) Section R5779 (I) 12005 , Dated 6 6 2005 Section RO 374 (I) / 2002 Dated 15 6 2002 Customs General Order No. 12/02 The authority to impose or restrict the import and export of goods by the Department of Stock lot or employed goods. It is alleged that the imported goods were in different pieces the size and the goods as mentioned above were of stock lot or job quality and attracted the provisions of the Customs Act 1969 in the presence of justification by the appellant no wrong. Announcement not found Nor was there any restriction imposed by him. The import did not provide reasons for presenting the goods as job lot or stock lot in this import test report; no objective criteria were imposed by the inspection staff as to the benefits of the applicant already. The means were obtained for the importation of goods; the provisions of section RO 374 (I) / 2002 were not applicable. The previous orders were discriminatory and not sustainable as per the Appellate Tribunal set aside. best advocate from Gari Mori lawyer