Find a Lawyer

M. N.-IMP. & EXP. COMPANY, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DEVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 81 (3) and 25 (1), (2) (F), (9) Rules of Assessment No. 497/2006, dated 21 1 2006 Customs General Order 2002 of Finance Act (VII of 2005), retrospective provisional \ The complainant related to the assessment duty claimed that under subsection (4), it was read with sub-section (2) of section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, as the customs authorities decided within the mandatory period prescribed under section 81. The evaluation order was not approved. (2) The post-dated checks of the Customs Act, 1969 should have been returned but the customs authorities did not fulfill their duty under Section 81 (3) of the Customs Act, 1969, under section 81 of the addition of clarification of Is described together. Temporary determination of the Customs Act, 1969, includes the amount of duty and tax received with a bank guarantee or postdate check, and this legal provision guarantees the customs authorities to seize the bail. Respecting the amount of security in the final determination, an appropriate order should have been issued that had not been cloned so far had not caused the cause of action at the time of the provisional assessment but the mandatory period specified in section 81 of the Customs Act Was born after the end. 1969, the fact was established that the appraisal of goods was not fixed even on 11 7 2007 and no action was taken to return the post-dated checks, the temporary determination of the finality of duty under section 81 (4). Commitment and taxation will be considered final. The Customs Act, 1969 was fully legalized The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue Collector (Customs) instruct the collector to pay the complainant within 15 days of Rs. 3,82,193. Return the check to the r \ n immigration advocate from Dhoun Kal lawyer