Find a Lawyer

FACO TRADING THROUGH ATTORNEY versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 25 (1), 35, 81 and 194 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 constitute a mixed question of law and fact from the claim and liability of the retained funds under which the article The appropriate forum for consumption had to be reviewed. After the provisional assessment under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, the applicant was considered for a refund of the disputed deposit for release of his consignment as the applicant pursuant to section 25 (1) of the Customs Act 1969 Had to review the goods under. Appropriate Tribunal was the appropriate forum customs appellate tribunal for relinquishing the transaction, and the value of the claim and otherwise not the return, and before taking such relief constitutional petition before the High Court, section 194A of the Customs Act, 1969 There was no manageable purpose. It states that any person or officer of Customs is aggrieved by any of the orders set out in section 194A, against which the appellate tribunal may appeal, with the exception of the first provisions of section 194A of the Customs Act, 1969, The appellate tribunal has jurisdiction to pay the duty drop, appropriate inquiry is required to determine whether the importer or exporter was entitled to a duty drop on a particular item. The constitutional petition cannot be heard because the inquiry into the return of duty was a mixed question of law and the fact that the High Court was not a proper question to examine and decide whether the applicant returned the postdated check. Deserves or not? how to become a advocate from Dera Ghazi Khan lawyer