Find a Lawyer

CRYSTAL MOVING SYSTEM THROUGH MIAN ABDUL GHAFFAR versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of Office of Section 82 & Federal 25 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of Sun 2000 2000V), Section (()) (I) (B) (C) of Customs Rules, 2001, R48 Sec RO 45 45 (I) / 2001, dated 18 6 2001 In accordance with the High Court order, the goods were not cleared or warehouses or transshiped within a month after the auction of the imported goods, ie compensation for damages. The customs department claims that the complainant did not comply with the High Court order. The department should have issued an assessment order within forty-five days, seeking the import documents from the relevant importer / group. Year and goods were auctioned at a third of the reserve price The importer did not vigorously pursue the maintenance and maintenance of the goods, while customs officials were willing to auction the goods if the customs authorities did not evaluate the goods. The importer should protest before appropriate administrative, judicial or judicial forums, the importer could pay duty and tax at a 14% increased cost and represented for the return of duty and tax difference. ? Auctioning of goods was the concern of auctioning goods at low prices and claiming importer's compensation and the possibility of collective misconduct by customs staff could not be ruled out, the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended. In accordance with the directions of the Revenue Depot High Court, the Director General will conduct a thorough inquiry into the matter to ascertain the reasons why they were not re-reviewed for one year. Because the goods in the third auction default / tax advocates from Mardan lawyer