MRS. SHAHIDA ANWAR versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, LAHORE
Sections 15, 16 and 17 of section RO 634 (I) / 2004, dated 22 7 2004 section RO 734 (I) / 2005, section 216 of 2005 R 216 (I) / 2005, constitution of Pakistan 6 of 2005 (1973), according to Article 199 Constitution Petition 6,2005, the import bill of a vehicle and the date of entry for 12 6 2005 was declared by the applicant (importer) in 2003 as the year of manufacture of the vehicle and the gift scheme Claiming its import under Import Order 2004, as per RO 4 634 (I) / 2004, has been allowed to import vehicles not more than two years old through the Seed Scheme / Notification of 22 7 2004. The authorities did not allow the imported vehicle to be cleared and periodically This was confirmed from time to time. The year of its manufacture, which disqualified the import vehicle from the benefits of the Gift Scheme, resulted in the applicant's vehicle not being able to be imported in 6 2005, therefore, in violation of the prohibition contained in the 2004 import policy. He was responsible for the seizure. 2 005 (Section RO 634 (I) / 2004, dated 22 7 74) A notice of condolence was issued to the applicant by the authorities; Section RO 734 (I) / 2005 dated 21 7 2005, Government Announced the Import Policy Order, 2005. During 2006, vehicles under the Gift Scheme that were able to import for three years instead of three years, the question arises whether the applicant in these circumstances was entitled to the extension privileges granted in the Import Policy Order, 2005 2006. And because of this, the seized imported vehicles to save this vehicle - the authorities believed that the beneficial section RO could not work in frustration to reopen past and closed transactions, past rule and closed transactions. Applies when all actions on the problem are imported
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
