Sections 194B (2), 25, 25A, 32, 32A, 79 (1) and 196 Sales Tax Act (VII VI of 1990), Section 33 (11) (c) Custom Rules, 2001, R 107 Section R O. No. 487 (I) / 2007 Customs General Order 12/2002 dated 15 6 2002 Appellate Tribunal's order for correction of the error of the order of the appellate tribunal has been requested by the Customs Additional Collector to confirm that the imported goods There is a quality compared to the \ prime \ secondary as well as the facts raised. The importer claimed that since there is no obvious error in the decision, the correction request should be dismissed in Lumni, with the ultimate design and good intentions. Filed with Which was proved by the fact that despite the receipt the decision, the applicant and his subordinate were not following the instructions in which the correction request was filed so late if there was an appearance at the order level. The error could have been observed even before the indictment was nothing but an indication that the importer had a reference to the Federal Tax Ombudsman for compliance with the appellate tribunal's decision and against the order in the correction request against the order. Despite the fact that the intent to file was filed under section 196, there was nothing to stop the complaint. In the Customs Act, 1969, no reference was made to the High Court Applicants, in fact, to establish a fiercely contested version of the fact or legal error. Instead, the attempt was over that the wild goose was pursued and adjourned to the trial of the appellate tribunal's jury verdict because it was not considered in the Customs Act, 5194b (2) of 1969, but the application was rejected. Done. Api
