Find a Lawyer

MESSRS IMTIAZ AHMED versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR

Section 2 (s), 9, 10, 15, 181 and 196 Section RO 374 (I) / 2002, dated 15 6 2002 Appeal of the High Court to authorize the payment of fine fines for confiscation of goods. The Contractor claimed that his confiscated goods could be left on payment; as payment authority, the use of his discretionary powers was issued in payment of payment of fines in many such cases and Appellant's case could not be dealt with different yard stock. Notification No. Section RO No. 374 (I) / 2002 for payment of fines for importation of seized or smuggled goods or for importation of goods imported in violation of section 15 of section 2 of the Customs Act 1969 No option was given under Article 15 6 2002. The confiscated goods of the Customs Act, 1969 did not fall within the purview of section 2 (s) (i) (ii) of the Customs Act 1969, but fall under the purview of section 2 (s) (iii) of the Act. No, it was available to prove that the luggage was thrown. This route was declared under Sections 9 and 10 of the Customs Act 1969. The fact that the goods were later found and seized in a truck will not prove that the goods were brought on the declared route and would have been leaked with the entry bill if the goods were there. , But he did not appeal that the said goods were smuggled in any way other than those declared under Sections 9 and 10 of the Customs Act, 1969, under which he applied for the exercise of discretionary powers on the payment of exemption fines. The question of release of the goods to the consumer will not arise in terms of section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969, as Section 156 of the 2002 Section RO law firms from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer