Find a Lawyer

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS versus PAK ARAB RAFINERY, KARACHI

Permanent release of imported goods in relation to the difference between duty and tax difference between the declared value and the temporarily fixed customs duty under section 79 and (81 (value)), to support any In the absence of documentary evidence, there was no discretion, serious or mechanical, given to the customs officer under section 81 (1) of the Customs Act, 1964, but it had to be dealt with with full diligence and discretion. The provisional review order should be argued.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• NAZIR AHMED TUNIO v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED 2010 CLD 894
• RIAZ AHMED v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Board of Revenue at Hyderabad 2010 PLC(CS) 894
• SPEEDWAY FONDMETALL, PAKISTAN LTD. v. NIB BANK LTD.(Formerly PICIC) 2010 CLD 896
• SALMAN ALVI v. UNITED BANK LTD. through President 2010 MLD 899
• MUHAMMAD SHAHID v. State 2010 YLR 901
• ZAFAR H. ISMAIL v. Mrs. RUBINA ALI AAMIR 2010 YLR 902
• NABI BUX JAHEJO v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Agriculture 2010 PLC(CS) 902
• BANK OF PUNJAB v. FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED 2010 CLD 903

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

us immigration advocates from Makli lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes