Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS

Sections 2 (K), 26, 156 (1), (8), (89), (90), 168 and 196 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XNXX of 1950), section 3 (3) ) Definition of confiscating evidence Appellant's car owned by the appellant in the High Court was confiscated in the case that the appellant had illegally brought the unpaid vehicle through the country and had levied taxes / taxes. I replaced my chassis number plate to avoid this. First, since the Superintendent of Customs was not authorized to confiscate a seized vehicle, the entire operation based on this section is against the provisions of Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, which would be irregular in law. Second, if there was any tampering with the chassis number of the vehicle, the work could have been done in the country from which the vehicle was imported and would not be particularly opposed to the claim of the appellant when in doubt. There is no finger of doubt. Authorities have expressed honesty about disclosing the import of this document and where no investigations have been made as to whether any other vehicle operating under the same document was valid under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969 Could not be confirmed was neither deemed mandatory nor was any result mentioned for failure to comply. The second argument is primarily a fact that, under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, it could not be acted upon at the hearing of the appeal, which persisted only on the question of law and the appellant had no basis when the appellant. Could not establish a nexus between. Imports and vehicle documents were seized and confiscated, as was the case. advocate for immigration from Morgah lawyer