| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 712 2010 SLD 712 2010 PTD 324 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
C. A. No.638/LB of 2009, decision dated: 5-10-2009, hearing DATE 17-09-2009
MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellants. Saleem Ullah SIO and Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S. for
Respondents.
C. A. No.638/LB of 2009, decision dated: 5-10-2009, hearing DATE 17-09-2009
MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellants. Saleem Ullah SIO and Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S. for
Respondents.
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 156
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(1), Cls. (9), (14) & (14-A)---Punishment for offences--Confiscation of seized goods---Option was given to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine equal to 30% of the customs value to be appraised and to pay penalty of Rs. 5,00,000---Validity---Order-in-Original was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal so far as it related to the demand of duty and tax in respect of goods which were neither available nor seized---Redemption fine was reduced to 15% of the customs value to be re-determined as ordered by adjudicating officer---Penalty was also reduced to Rs.2,00,000. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 18, 79, 80 & 156(1)(43)---Goods dutiable---Levy of duty and taxes on the goods already removed though neither available nor seized, on the ground that all goods imported or brought into Pakistan were liable to customs duty and such goods were also part of the seized consignments as stated by the prosecution on the basis of statement of Manager of Bond---Validity---Recovery memo. prepared by the department in respect of seized goods, which contained the details and particulars of each item, whereas no such description and detail of the goods allegedly taken away by the appellant was available on record---Demand of duty and taxes raised by the department in respect of goods, which were neither available nor seized nor details and description thereof had been brought on record was unjustified and illegal. (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S.156(1)(43)-Punishment for offences---Removal of goods from Port by third persons and subsequently sold to the appellant---Punishment---Validity---Clause (43) of S.156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 was not applicable so far as the appellant was concerned as admittedly he never got any goods cleared illegally from the Port. (d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S.156(1)(43)---Punishment for offences---Show-cause notice---Appellant contended that duty and taxes in respect of goods which were neither available nor seized had been demanded in term of Cl. (43) of subsection (1) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, whereas he was never charged under the said provision of law in theβ¦
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