SYED BROTHERS, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 2 (s), 16, 168 and 195 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance of the Office of Establishment (XXV of 2000), delay in the release of seized goods, sections 9, 10 and 16, 3751 of various sizes under section 1768 Original, discharged show cause notice was issued to the complainant's adjudication officer on violation of provisions 2 of the Tire Customs Act, 1969 and due to the Customs Act 1969, the complainant was directed by the Directorate of Customs Referred to the Intelligence and Investigation Letters for the release of the seized goods in the light of the order, but the goods were not released by the collector. After more than six months, the Customs Act, the order opened in 1969 originally under the provisions of Section 195. In the customs arbitration proceedings of Customs, it has clearly shown its evils and is also subject to the prejudice of a case pending before the recommendations of the Federal Tax Ombudsman. The Federal Board of Revenue has been referred to request a record of the case, examine it, and actually pass the appropriate order for cancellation of order reopening. And showcases notice after the collector's seized goods are collected by the collector. Instruct the Collector Customs (precautionary) within 15 days explaining why the Federal Tax Ombudsman cannot be prosecuted under section 16 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 for attempting to prejudice the pending matter before the Federal Tax Ombudsman. Is? This and compliance report will be submitted within 20 days \ r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
