Find a Lawyer

HAJI REHMATULLAH AND ANOTHER versus COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, QUETTA

Sections 201 and 181 Customs General Order No. 5 Dated 19 4 1992 Customs Auction Rules, 1996 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185 (3) and 199 Forfeiture of goods sold to auctioneer by Customs Authority Customs Authority The constitutional jurisdiction High Court Scope Mobile Squad recovered wrist watches from a specially designed deep-seated bus on a highway authority official after which the applicants claimed ownership of the watches authority. In the Customs Act, 1969, after collecting fines, the payer was instructed to issue payment-based watches, submitting a request for the release of those watches, after which they found that the watches had already been sold. The CSD has been issued to the shop, the applicants were informed that the petition received by the High Court in response to the petitioner's provocation was dismissed, which was rejected. That the High Court did not appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the dispute in its original context and that the provisions contained in Section 2014 of the Customs Act, 1969 were misunderstood and misinterpreted. The compulsory formalities considered under Section 2012 of the Customs Act, 1969, were read with CGO No. 5 194 1992, which escaped the notice of the High Court, which resulted in a misunderstanding of justice. During the disposal of the goods seized by the Authority, the Customs Auction Rules, 1996 were violated and the seized goods were sold less than the goods market. During the approval of the constitutional request, the customs authorities auctioned the seized goods. And what was then deposited in the public treasury, patent advocate from Rashidabad lawyer