MRS. SURAYYA BEGUM versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Sections 32, 79, 80 and 196 Goods Stats Inspection After inspecting the goods, the authorities declare that the importer had made a false declaration and that the goods were different from those mentioned in the goods declaration. The weapons officer confiscated the goods and fined them. Was also imposed on the importer, as well as the Collector (Appeal), as well as Section 79 (1) of the Customs Act 1969, by the Customs Appellate Tribunal Validity Importer, which was obliged to record the goods properly. Complete and accurate details of the equipment were provided, which were properly assisted. The billing, airway bill, packing list or any other document required for clearance of the goods by trade invoice, in this manner and under which the Board has already proposed the declaration of goods for such declaration. And it had to be completed and the correct declaration and if for some reason they were not sure about the import goods description, there was no compulsion on the import of the whole shipment against a particular serial number of a price decision. Claiming an Assessment. If the importer was of the view that the pricing decision was not particularly clear and ambiguous, she would have made herself liable to claim an assessment against a particular serial number, applicable only in relation to certain goods. The original order was properly passed against the importer and its act was fully covered under section 32 of the Customs Act 1969, answering the questions raised in the reference against the importer and the rights of the authorities I was made and the order passed by the appellate tribunal was retained and the reference was rejected in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
