IQBAL KHAN versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX), GUJRANWALA AND 2 OTH
Sections 2 (s), 168 and 196 Section RO No. 566 (I) / 05 dated 6 2005 referring to the seizure of goods from the High Court Department of Customs officials after issuing showcase notices and hearing applicants seized the collector ( Appeal was filed on behalf of the applicants against the order of confiscation by the Appeal, the Applicants appealed the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction, which was also dismissed, the Applicants referred to the High. The judgment of the applicant before the Collector (Appeal) was the fabric, which was in question the misconduct of section 2 (s) of the Customs Act, 1969. I did not know and foreign cloth was removed from this section the definition of smuggled goods in the R light. O No 566 (I) / 05 The Collector accepted the applicant's concession, but upheld the confiscation order on the basis that the seizing of the cloth was not a sufficient quantity y The Tribunal also ordered the confiscation of the same land. Maintained that the Collector (Appeals) was caught in large quantities; in similar circumstances, 2,80,000 square yards of foreign cloth was not confiscated, but it was allowed to redeem duties, taxes and penalties. Against payment, under the circumstances, he was also entitled to the release and release of goods / cloth which was decided by the department in lieu of payment of income tax and payment of taxes. Will be chosen.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
