Find a Lawyer

GLAXO LABORATORIES LTD., LAHORE versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX ADJUDICATION-1, KARACHI

Sections 32 (3) and 223 notifications section R588 (I) / 1990, dated 7 6 1990 due to a ban on incorrect declaration time, the authorities banned the notice on the basis that it contested the approved player. I had imported too much. The importer was that the showcase notes issued by the authorities were timely banned with frustration. This was not a matter of misrepresentation or misrepresentation from the importer but rather of a misrepresentation of the Central Board of Revenue from time to time. 3 3 1995 1995 from since hope After months, disappointment was banned from time to time as the Central Board of Revenue did not make the date of publication of this letter effective in its letter dated 7/6 1997. But the clearance of the goods was allowed in the terms of the final certificate issued under section RO 587 (I) / 90 issued in favor of the importer, with further additions up to 30 1995 1995, imported by letter 7 of 1995 Issue against the importer in connection with the final certification issued by the Central Board of Revenue by the Central Board of Revenue on November 8, 1996, after allowing the release of the raw material. The court proceedings were against section 223 of the Customs Act, 1969, which directed the Central Board of Revenue A. The binding effect on all its subordinate officers was then that any action initiated against the importer by issuing a showcase notice was without jurisdiction and the instructions given by the authorities against the importers by the Central Board of Revenue Order Was completely infringed but circumstances permit reference advocate from Ranipur lawyer