Find a Lawyer

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

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, informing the applicants that the amount received by the petitioner fiercely provoked by the action of the authority f the constitutional application before the High Court which was rejected was the petitioner's stand that the High Court was in its originality. Does not define the legal and factual aspects of the dispute in the context and the section of the Customs Act, 1969 The provisions contained in 2014 were misrepresented and misinterpreted. The compulsory formal customs considered under Section 2012 of the Customs Act, 1969, were read along with the Customs General Order No. 5 dated 194 1992, which saved the notice of the High Court which resulted in 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 then the money in the public treasury top advocate from Moro lawyer