Find a Lawyer

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS versus NATIONAL REFINERY

In the Demand Notice issued by the Deputy Collector Customs Department (Applicant), Section 32 (3), it was held that the Deputy Collector Customs made any non- Did not take legal action, though it was not demanded notice that respondents were still given opportunity according to the language of Section 32 (3) of the Customs Act, 1969; Asked the appellate tribunal on remand so that the same decision should be made on the ability of the parties to provide. The opportunity to put the relevant material respondents on record may challenge the authority of the notice issuing officer or they may make such additional requests to the appellate tribunal within the parameters of the law \ r \ n

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• MUHAMMAD IMRAN v. State 2011 SCMR 1954
• ALI MUHAMMAD v. State 2011 SCMR 1964
• NASIR ABBAS v. State 2011 SCMR 1966
• MUHAMMAD HANIF v. BASHIRAN BIBI 2011 SCMR 1974
• CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY v. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AMAF 2011 SCMR 1988
• FIDA HUSSAIN v. Mst. SAIQA 2011 SCMR 1990
• Syed ALI ABBAS v. State 2011 SCMR 1994
• GUL DIN v. State 2011 SCMR 1997

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

famous lower court advocate from Samundri lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes