Find a Lawyer

GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI

Customs Act 1969 section 80 imports of goods importer pays customs duty according to the price in the import document The importer then claims reduction in duty while demanding quality reduction and cost reduction to claim duty reduction. The importer admittedly paid the full price for the supply (no goods), neither received nor demanded any deferment, which paid a special price for the importer's goods and at that price Because the market value of the goods cannot claim a reduction in duty by requesting a reduction in quality. And the cost reduction importer has never claimed that the goods have been damaged, damaged, damaged or damaged in any case, despite the restoration of any unusual provision of the law (related to the reduction of duty). The buyer was not attracted to the claim. Due to the unstable character of the warehouse, there is no reduction in the warehouse period. The value of the imported commodities made under section 80, Customs Act, 1969 has been assessed. In such situation there will be good competition against the appellant Can't talk about legal right, lack of claim because its provider cheated it. Therefore, a case was made for a claim for customs duty refund attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Qalandarabad lawyer