Find a Lawyer

MESSRS KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLIES CO. (PVT.) versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMS VALUATION & P.C.A., KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS

Sections 25 and 81 (1) (2) of Assessment Order 708/2006 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Petition The provisional overview of the duty of the applicants was that on the import of their respective goods / goods, the department accepted. Instead of finalizing their valuation, they have been priced according to the entry bills, temporarily assessed and released their goods under section 81 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969. And then under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969, without adhering to the reasonable way to determine the value of their goods, they were threatening them on the basis of section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 (2) Finalize your studies in accordance with the terms of The order dated 708/2006, received by the Directorate of Customs Valuation and Treatment dated 318 2006, was merely that the applicants were of the view that such assessment was not binding on them and that the provisional review under the terms of section 81 was finalized. The basis for giving cannot be made. ()) Constitutional requests regarding the legality of the Customs Act, Val6969, were premature because only the order of assessment was obtained by the Department from the Customs Valuation and Treatment Directorate, but based on such pricing decisions, the customs authority The relevant authorities did not make any final assessment. In the circumstances under section 25 and 81 (2) of the Customs Act, 1969, it cannot be considered that at this stage only the order of prices by the customs authorities will form the basis for the final evaluation of the goods received and disputed. The constitutional petitions were dealt with by the High Court on the ground that whenever the applicant's goods will be finalized. Customs authorities attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Jalal Pur Jatan lawyer