MAW AND COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Article 195 Section RO 659 (I) / 2009, 30 2007 2007 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petition Applicant ceramic tiles and sanitary equipment in the light of the order of import of goods to justify the report. What was the challenge In 2010, a directive was sought against the authorities for the refund of the amount collected by the petitioner by the High Court and the protest as a balancing act and under the Customs Act, 1969 the FIR was initiated. The dispute raised by the applicant for the declaration was that in 2006, the free trade agreement with the neighboring country was exempted from payment of customs duty / regulatory duties, the authorities objected. FTA certificate on the basis of which the applicant claimed benefits in customs duty. Confirmed forged documents are not mentioned in imported glazed porcelain tiles under section RO 659 (glaze) under the Free Trade Agreement section (I) / 2007 dated 30 2007 2007 Customs duty increased from 25 gla to 35 Percentage of imported glazed porcelain tile and regulatory duty of 15% was also imposed under the Finance Act, 2008. In accordance with the law and after the certification of the FTA certificate, a final diagnostic order was approved whereby the petitioner applied for a bond and postdate check to the extent of the difference payable for the temporary deduction of customs duty under the securities order. Was released on O The neighboring country authorities stated in a letter in 2009 that the stamp and signature on the certificate submitted by the applicant were incorrect, such certificate was issued in the Free Trade Agreement.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
