Find a Lawyer

MESSRS S. FAZAL ILAHI &. SONS THROUGH REGISTRAR versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AND OTHERS

Sections 25 (4) and 81 Customs Rules, 2001, R 109 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Temporary Review of Constitutional Request Duty The applicant / importer's goods were issued under a temporary review of customs duty, of which In addition to payment under the declared value of the imported goods, the authorities, under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, obtained a check and compensation bond posted from the applicant, which the authorities claimed to have imported goods. There is a difference in liability on account of the higher cost. Section 81 (4) of the Customs Act, 1969 was declared to be final after a one-year interim provisional review in which no finding was made and the incident was made under section 25 (4) of the Customs Act 1969 ) I did. The taxing officer had a duty to ask the importer for evidence or documents that required mutual assistance or explanation. Such a demand was not raised by the authorities in the data of the Rule 109 of the Customs Rules 2001, nor did any material encounter with the applicant for the verification of high value which the applicant / importer The recipient cannot be punished for the penalties incurred by the authorities under section 81 (4). ) Of the Customs Act, 1969, the version of the price paid by the applicants / importer was accepted and at the time of final evaluation, the applicant / importer recorded the bid order by them, claiming the highest price. Officials' failure to set the record on has been finalized. Liability should not be construed with any attributable value, if that is the case, these hypothetical claims, best law firms from Kundina lawyer