WESTERN COMPUTER (PVT.) LTD. versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Article 81 (2) (3) and Paragraph 66 of the 25A Customs General Order 2002, 2002 constitutes the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Temporary Review of Duty Complaint. The corruption was subjected to on the basis that valuation rolling was a diagnostic order provided under paragraph 66 of the Customs General Order 12 of 2002, which had reached the final determination of temporary commitment / duty and taxes but was not payable at all. Yes, the return price is not valid; it was correct that the pricing order was rolled out or evaluated by the Assessing Order / Customs group for a period of nine months. It was to be based on ray and speculation that the pricing rule itself would be a misdiagnosis order which led to the issuance of the Demand Less Show cause notice more than four months after the date; There was no justification for the delay in value nor for the fact that the price fixed by the department valuation was not communicated to the importer and it was also unfair that one year before the deputy collector's decision was rendered. Seven months have elapsed. If the customs notice and the notice of hearing were properly conveyed to the importer who did not attend the hearing, the previous order could have been passed instead of postponing the hearing about ten times. The record proves that the matter The decision was made only two years after the matter was diagnosed. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a proportional decision of mismanagement that the Federal Board of Revenue instructed the Director General of Customs Value to review the pricing of goods under Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969, after which the complainant
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
