Find a Lawyer

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS versus FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD.

Such claims were denied by the authority claiming Section 80 and 193 refunds, but the High Court of Pellion of Revenue accepted that the demand raised under section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969, was subject to customs duty. I could have presented against the increase under section 193 and that the High Court could not be set up. The petitioner's order / order for payment of customs duty, when the alternative was available to him, was overruled by the jurisdiction of the collector (appellate) in making an unlawful decision. Had not decided. Under the circumstances, the decision of the High Court is controversial

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• GHULAM HAIDER v. MURAD through Legal Representatives 2012 PLD 501
• COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD. 2012 PTD 501
• TAJ MUHAMMAD AFRIDI v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT SECRETARIAT 2012 PLC(CS) 507
• ABDUL KHALIQ (DECEASED) v. Ch. REHMAT ALI (DECEASED) 2012 SCMR 508
• NAZEER AHMED v. NOORUDDIN 2012 SCMR 517
• Syed YOUSAF RAZA GILLANI v. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 2012 SCMR 519
• Dr. AKHTAR HASSAN KHAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2012 CLD 520
• MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ v. State 2012 SCMR 522

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocate from Dunyapur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes