Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 107 1990 SLD 107 1990 PLJ 299
Sindh High Court
Const, petition No. D-2481 of 1989, dismissed on 6.3.1990
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND IMAM ALI G KAZI, JJ
Mr. Abaidur Rehman, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Shainsuddin KJialid, Advocate and Mr. A.G. Mangi, A.A.G for Res¬pondents.

NASEEB ULLAHer

VS

Syed TARIQ ALI RIZVI and 5 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Cantonment (Election and Election Petitions) Rules, 1979- —R. 66-Member of Cantonment-Election of~Election petition against— Acceptance of~Challenge to-Documcnts clearly proved that name of petitioner was entered in voters list on 9.12.1987 for first time-Official respondents categorically denied in their respective written statements before election tribunal that name of petitioner was entered in voters list on 31.11.1987-Held: In above state of evidence, Election Tribunal rightly concluded that name of petitioner did not appear in electoral list on 1.12.1987, therefore, he was not qualified to be candidate from that ward-¬Held further: Dispute raised by respondent No. 1 before tribunal related to qualification of petitioner as a candidate and not as a voter and as such, proviso to rule 66 was not attracted in this case-Petition dismissed. [Pp.302303]AB JUDGMENT Saleem Akhtar, J.—The petitioner imported 1075 Cartons of Pineapple in Syrup at the rate of CF U.S. $ 3.48 per carton of 24 tins of 20 Oz each. The goods arrived on 12.5.1980 on board M.V. President Roosevelt Voy. 76. The Bill of entry was submitted on the same day declaring the value of the goods as per invoice. It is alleged that the Customs’ Authorities did not take any action and the petitioner wrote letter dated 14.6.1980 to the Collector of Customs complaining against the delay in clearance of the goods which had gone under demurrage w.e.f. 28.5.1980. The goods however were not allowed to be cleared and a show-cause notice was issued on or about 24.7.1980 by respondent No. 3 alleging that the documents delivered and declaration/statement made by the petitioner were untrue in material particulars and there was contravention of Section 32 of Customs Act 1969. It was alleged that the goods were grossly under invoiced to evade substantial Government revenue. The petitioner replied and stated that the show-cause notice was vague and did not give particulars of documents, declaration and statements. The basis of fixing the normal value was not disclosed nor it was shown whether it was based on transaction or information. It was further stated that the notice was bad in law for having been issued more…
đź”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492