Find a Lawyer

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. K-300 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 10TH MAY, 2004. versus CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. K-300 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 10TH MAY, 2004.

Section 18 BCBR Circular No. 9 (20) / 99CB, dated 13 12 1999 Service charges The levy of such withdrawal claim was dismissed on the basis that no original bill of entry documents exist on record. And will not attract a refund without the original documentation. On the audit object, the appellant asserted that the claim was dismissed on the basis of duty and was aligned between the facts assumed by the department and the evidence on record was supplied but the claim was made. The application was terminated or destroyed and a duplicate set was provided because when the documents were in the possession of department officials, the appellant could not be held responsible for court error, thus, other claims already made by customs. Has been granted and the appellant is being subjected to discrimination or the Chartered Unacceptable Accountant The certificate was misunderstood as the Adjustment Officer could inquire into the fact finding and record if there was evidence o It was necessary that he could never make such an attempt to dismiss the claim based on the assumption that it was legal. Not based on legal basis, the customs authorities allowed the number of such claims to include the same problem in the same claim and all the documents presented. This was the case as was presented in other claims that the representative of this department did not have an answer to the question that the appellate tribunal termed a situation where the taxpayer was not being victimized for any discipline or reason. ? The appellate tribunal set aside the law and directed the department female advocates from Pak Pattan Sharif lawyer