Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
2003
THLN 159
2003 PTD 1109 | 2002 PTCL 427
Laws Cited
Customs Act, 1969
Sections
181

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others

VS

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS

Petitioner(s) by: Mian Abdul Ghaffar, and Rana Sardar Ali and Mr. Muhammad Akram Nizami, Advocates.
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Amer Ahmed, D.R., Mr. Rahat Pirzada, D.S., Mr. Mubarak Ali Sherazi, I.0. and Mr. Akhtar Zaidi, Inspector
Present: MR., JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
ORDER

MR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL).--
(1). This judgment disposes of 48 appeals as listed in the title since common issues on law and facts are involved in all these cases. Vehicles were seized by the customs authorities from each of the appellant on different dates and at different places on the ground that those were non duty paid/smuggled. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants on different dates by the adjudicating officers who vide their respective separate orders ordered for the outright confiscation of the vehicles under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and did not allow the appellants, despite their pleading, to redeem the vehicles on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation alongwith duty/taxes payable under the law in view of the operation of SRO. 1374(I)/98, dated 17.12.98, particularly clause (a) read with table-I of the SRO. Appeals filed against these orders were dismissed by the Tribunal vide its separate orders in the light of its judgm...

2003 THLN 159
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
(2003 PTD 1109 | 2002 PTCL 427)

PRESENT:
MR., JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others
VS
DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS

Petitioner(s) by: Mian Abdul Ghaffar, and Rana Sardar Ali and Mr. Muhammad Akram Nizami, Advocates..

Respondent(s) by: Mr. Amer Ahmed, D.R., Mr. Rahat Pirzada, D.S., Mr. Mubarak Ali Sherazi, I.0. and Mr. Akhtar Zaidi, Inspector.

Law: Customs Act, 1969
Sections: 181

Disclaimer / Note: We have reproduced the judgment for facilitation of readers; however, the readers must study the original or certified copy of the above said judgment before referring it in any Court of Law. The judgment as reproduced above is a reported judgment available in law magazines and journals namely: 2003 PTD 1109 | 2002 PTCL 427