BELAL MOSTAFA SADEQI LTD. versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Article 45 (2) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Application Implementation Charter, Purpose and Scope Amendment Implicit Error Impact The petitioners had imported a shipment and had the goods, the weight of the goods, the details regarding the material. The content was content. And the number of goods farm packages was the same, in which Bill Ladung's Master Bill for Lodging was issued with the same goods for which the applicant had both bills of the House of Lords of the building handed over to the same shipment. Were. Apart from similar details, except for request for information change in the ship's manifesto, customs officials did not mention the name of the freight forwarder as procurement of the goods; the person who sent the message to the appropriate customs authority officer or Its authorized agent should be allowed to rectify any improper error in the import manifesto or supply of any fault which was caused by accident or inadvertence which amends the importing manifesto on payment of fixed fee by presenting amendments or additional import manifesto. Can be requested by the ship's agent. Nor was the easement of trade with the correction of errors and omissions, but the present case was a clear error, by inserting the intention and purpose of subsection 15 (2) of the Customs Act 1969. Or a genuine error freight forwarder that was shown as goods to be imported in the import manifesto before the customs authorities did not own the goods, the modification requested by the applicant was included under section 45 (2) of the Customs Act ? The 1969 freight forwarder's name appears as an imported manifesto instead of a vassal, due to the clear error.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
