ISLAMABAD: The Customs Appellate Tribunal has adjourned the hearing of a plenty of cases during the fourth week of October.
Customs Appellate Tribunal’s division bench headed by Chairman Justice (r) Malik Manzoor Hussain and comprising another Member, Ziaudding Wazir, held the hearing of about 20 customs cases.
On Tuesday, the bench adjourned the hearing of six references until the next visit of the tribunal’s chairman to Islamabad headquarters. These cases include customs matters filed by M/s Fida International, M/s Irfan Ullah, M/s Luner Technologies, M/s Five Star Trading, M/s Fahad Industries and M/s Nayatel (Private) Limited. All of these cases were filed against the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigations, Islamabad.
A day before, the bench adjourned hearing of customs cases filed by M/s Waseem Autos, M/s Nisar Traders, M/s Parts & Parts, M/s Chief Autos, M/s Aman Elahi, M/s Kohinoor Traders, M/s Saleem Silk, M/s Malik Jehangir and M/s Pakistan Royal Group.
Tribunal’s division bench heard arguments on the cases and adjourned for further arguments due to missing some of information about the cases.
Meanwhile, a single bench of tribunal sought submission of reply from the Federal Board of Revenue’s field office, Collectorate of Customs (MCC), Islamabad, while hearing complaints filed by Raja Nabeel Razaq and M/s Saifullah.
Tribunal’s single bench comprising Member Technical, Ziauddin Wazir heard the cases and adjourned with directions to submit reply to department by next date.
Razaq had filed case against Directorate General Intelligence and Investigations, Islamabad while M/s Saifullah had submitted a complaint against Collectorate of Customs, Islamabad.
The former appellant had prayed the tribunal to de-seize the imported (computer) accessories confiscated by the DGI&I officials. He had challenged department’s adjudication announcement before the tribunal which had sustained the confiscation.
M/s Saifullah had also challenged a decision of Customs Collectorate and then sustained by the adjudication pertaining to the classification of goods he had imported from aboard. The appellant had prayed the tribunal that its pray was not heard by the adjudication properly.
