Find a Lawyer

MESSRS AKRAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 21A, 19 and 219 Customs Duty Rules, Payment of Contract Act of 1991 (IX of 1872), Section 72 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 27 Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) )) Section RO 490 (I) / 91, Dated 30 5 1991 (Import Duty Rules, 1991) Section RO 1076 (I) / 95, Dated 5 11 1995 Section R0 476 (I) 105, Date 19 5 2005 The customs department on the receipt of postponed customs duty demanded extra money due to surcharge and delayed payment surcharges, while 14% was received as compared to 11% and payment delays were delayed. The complainant states that the Customs Department has failed to break the bank guarantee in a timely manner. That the department waived its right to object to payment delays by not seizing the bank guarantee. Due to the department's own default, surcharges were delayed and they could not be allowed to take advantage of their failures and it was illegal to impose additional taxes / surcharges / markups. The original amount and surcharge of 11% in respect of Guarantee Guarantee through Guarantee Bank showed that the Department did not ask the Complainant to obtain the status of 5 (4) of the proposed Guarantee in the original Guarantee Bank offered by Guarantee Bank. Is. To secure surcharge on surcharge from the guarantor bank. Yet the department was demanding that, in addition to the 11% surcharge, which was under the original bank guarantee, the charge on the charge, which was not included in the guarantee offered by the guaranteed bank, as an additional charge on demand. The claim for compensatory sum was not valid nor according to the correct interpretation of the terms of the High Court judgment for which the Department was not entitled. law firms from Chowk Munda lawyer