Find a Lawyer

versus

Sections 81 (1) (2) (3) (4), 25 (4), 25B, 32 and 163 of the Customs Rules, 2001, R 109 (3) show a notice for the temporary reassignment of duty and the short recovery of taxes. The unnecessary import documents were presented to the customs authorities with the intention of avoiding duties and taxes while committing such fraud. According to the law, the sample was issued on a valid show, in which either the appellant was not charged or that he was full of material contradictions. The not only contained false facts, but also the legal notice. Were not even according to Revealed that the facts of various importer's cases were mixed and in many cases the facts listed in the notice were false, contradictory to the record and even contradictory to the value, in some cases higher than the value declared and examined. It has been shown that the customs authorities had suggested in the notice to assess these items that no damage to the treasury could be attributed to the importer / appellants nor could any of them be arrested. No action can be taken against the appellants on such premises in the event of false declaration within the meaning of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. No one can go beyond the charges mentioned in the notice and since the notes are either contradictory, without any special allegation or false facts, the appellate tribunal did not set any legal restraining order under the circumstances. top civil advocates from Khuiratta lawyer