Find a Lawyer

M.A. IMPEX, FAISALABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of sections 25, 32 (1A), 156 (1) and 14 of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 v. XXV), Section 2 (3) (i) (B) (C) Classification Literature / The laboratory report complained of jurisdiction against the Department for the disposal of goods under section 32 (1A) of the Customs Act, 1969, on the assessment of notice due to misrepresentation. It was reported that there was no substance in the shipment. It was found to be different from customer laboratory test reports and was of great importance, as announced by the complainant, the cost of the materials supplied by the department from the supplier and The details of the invoice details and the nature of the content were detailed. The test reports obtained by the department were cleared earlier, provided by them, which confirmed the complainant's announced version of the imported identification goods by the complainant. Preparation of the ingredients / ingredients and chemical properties of this material was not indicated in the report, prior to the PSSIR test reports and test reports related to the current report indicated that the substance. The main ingredient in nature was moral. The Department's decision was not based on careful, reliable and relevant evidence that the customs value of the imported goods was worth the transaction or that the Department paying its original price failed to prove that the invoice manufacturer and the exporting country The original certificate of the Chamber's certificate is not. The commerce department was not questioned by the department and the showcasing notice alleging false disclosure. female advocates from Jaja Abasian lawyer