SYED BROTHERS versus SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 2 (s), 16, 168 and 195 Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 VXV) Offices, Section 2 (3), 9, 10, 11 and 16 Department of Intelligence and Investigation Staff Seizure Delay in the release of the goods confiscated tires of different sizes under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, in violation of sections 2 (s) and 16 of the Customs Act 1969, for the complainant to operate a private warehouse for the storage of private parties Showcase notice was issued to the complainant on the basis of the rental. In his order, the Adjunct Officer ordered, in fact, the release of the showcase notice and the release of seized tires, but said the tires were released. Not done, the Customs Collector reopened the judicial order under section 195 of the Customs Act, 1969, six months after its release. Originally the order and the showcase notice was issued when the Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat complainant requested customs multiple times to process the complaint. The order was originally ordered but no action was taken. The repeated reminders, which are similar to the administration's high humiliation of the cases by the customs authorities, are evident from the fact that the case was made against the warehouse operator. Not only did the order reopen after asking Customs Intelligence against the owners of the goods / tires, however, the complainant filed a complaint before the Federal Tax Ombudsman, which the Collector knew was arbitrary Had shown disgust at the customs section and was subject to an impartial judgment. The matter is pending before the Federal Tax Ombudsman in which the Federal Board of Revenue recommends seeking a record of the case, to be examined and
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
