COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, THROUGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS versus EASTERN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Sections 194A, 194C, 196 and 181 of the Import Policy Order, 2013, Paras 9 (ii) (5) and 10 (vii), headed by the PCT, were enforced by the Customs Approved Order with reference to the 8705 4000 High Court and Dissatisfied The appellate tribunal, which filed a reference petition before the High Court applicant / department, pressed two questions. (A) whether without the Appellate Tribunal Bench, the Member (Technical) has the power to decide or dispose of the appeal. (B) whether the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal erred in the law that this invasive vehicle, which could be classified under PCT Heading 8705 4000, meant that for special vehicles, it was the involvement of the Department that the Judicial Customs The appellate tribunal erred in law. And the facts, in the absence of the (Technical) Customs Appellate Tribunal, which authorization was not granted in the Single Member (Judicial) under Section 194C of the Customs Act, 1969. The Customs Appellate Tribunal had erred in stating that the defective vehicles under the PCT Heading 8705 4000 could be classified for class vehicles and this is a case of false declaration by the importer, whereby the importer Has violated and violated the terms of the Import Policy Order, 2013. An attempt was made to import an old and used concrete transit mixer truck under PCT Heading 8704 2219, previously unrelated to the shipment company, was filed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal on the question of setting up the bench. ? Such basis was not raised in the appeal by the applicant / department, nor was the department's custom appellate tribunal of section 194C of the Customs Act, 1969
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
