Find a Lawyer

CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 81 (2) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 3 Section RO 27 (I) / 98, Dated 17 1 1998 Section RO 554 (I) / 98, Dated 10 6 1998 RO 987 (I)) / Cust 99 Customs General Order No. 7/1998 Customs General Order No. 14/1998 Unlawful review of the execution of the High Court order in the case of a temporary assessment where the goods are temporarily issued against the bank guarantee. The complainant claimed that the request had been sent. The Secretary (Machinery), Revenue Division, had no action but to execute the decision and issue the bank guarantee. The Department maintains that customs duty and sales tax exemption were not available under Customs General Order No. 7 at the time of import. 1998 Customs General Order No. 1998 was issued at a stage that was not enforceable and was denied exemption. The complainant should follow the instructions contained in the High Court decision. Follow the case before the Secretary (Machinery), the Federal Board of Revenue, and not approach the Office of the Assistant Collector of the Customs Complainant, failing to comply with the High Court's order, not following the case with the Federal Board of Revenue complaint Stay. Being premature, the benefit of Section RO 554 (I) / 1998 and Section RO 987 (I) / 99 was not acceptable to the complainants because the goods were manufactured locally, and if If concessions are granted, there will be a great loss to the validity of the national exchequer. It has been established that the decision of the High Court was not complied with for the decision within two months and was made temporary under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. Release disabled by customs authorities power of attorney advocate Jalal Pur Jatan lawyer