Find a Lawyer

ABID KHAN versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF FINANCE, KARACHI

Article 26, 171, 215, 138 and 180 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Customs Authority Petitioner's disapproval of the Cargo Validation Petitioner claims that such articles have been returned to Germany. Were just destined. Airport authorities were mistakenly sent to Pakistan because no documents were served in support of this claim The copies of the postal receipts recorded on the applicant's request were denied, under which the applicant The showcase notice was given. In the provision made under the Customs Act, 1969 (section 215), it shows that the notice sent by the Registered Post has served the Petitioner continuously, therefore, under the requisite notice, the goods cannot be stripped for return. Is. 5 180, Customs Act, 1969, was served by a registered post within a fixed period of two months; the goods could only be returned to the applicant. Under which, the required notice was not given under Section 8080, Customs Act, 69 69 6969, only those goods which could be considered goods of disappointment due to the detection of goods in unknown, wrong direction or distress. The station was brought in, did not meet its requirement. Section 138, Customs Act, 1969 Exceptionally only the applicant's disputed address was mentioned in the airway bill but the applicant also received a delivery order from the confiscation order of the cargo terminal manager and the applicant's articles. Confiscated, which was admittedly prohibited, do not suffer from any weakness power of attorney advocate Ludhan lawyer