Messrs WAQAS ENTERPRISES VS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (CUSTOMS), DRY PORT SIALKOT, 2002 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2977 (2002)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 196---Appeal---Question of fact---Quality of consignment leviable to duties---Validity---Question if the consignment does not answer the specification of contract between the parties or that these are of secondary quality leviable to duties and .taxes under the PCT Heading is necessarily a question of fact which cannot be a subject-matter of appeal to High Court under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969.

(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

---S. 196---Appeal---Question of fact---Quality of consignment leviable to duties---Importer had already got the consignment cleared after payment of usual taxes and duties---After clearance of the consignment, the importer made a clearing for refund of duty and taxes paid in exces's of price, plea raised by the importer was that kind of goods imported were secondary quality and were assessed wrongly---Plea of the importer was neither accepted by the Authorities, nor the same was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal---Validity---No question of enhancement of valuation arose as alleged by the importer ---Where valuation had been assigned with reference to a particular PCT Heading, it could not be said that the Revenue Authorities had enhance the value of the consignment---If the consignment was of any interior quality the same could not be adjudged in the present proceedings---High Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the forums below- --Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs v. Imdad Ali 1969 SCMR 708; Eastern Rice Syndicate v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 364 and Messrs Kausar Trading Co., v. Government of Pakistan, C.B.R. 1986 CLC 612 distinguished.

Jawahar A. Naqvi for Appellant.

A. Karim Malik for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 28th May, 2002.

JUDGMENT

NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.---The appellant imported a consignment declaring the same as "Flat rolled products of stainless steel" at a rate of US $ 1535 per metric ton and a Bill of Entry No. 2286 dated 13-5-1992 was filed for its clearance through clearing agent. However, the declaration on the face of bill entry that the goods imported were contrary to the contractual specifications requested to the exporter and therefore, a request had made for their clearance at US $ 500 per metric ton. A request for actual inspection and appraisement of the goods was sought. On physical examination the Department found that the consignment comprised of stainless steel sheets of width less than 600 mm. However, these were uniform in length ranging from 430 mm to 480 mm. Accordingly by classifying the goods under PCT Heading 7220.1100 chargeable to customs duty @50% and the valuation of the said consignment was applied @US$ 2125/M. Ton as per ITP.

2. After clearance of the consignment the importer made a clearing for refund of duty and taxes paid in excess of the price which according to him could have at best been assessed. at a rate of US $ 500 per metric ton. The Adjudication Authority refused the claim on the ground that width and length of the goods in each pallet was uniform and therefore, the plea of imporier that consignment primarily comprised of goods which was substandard in quality was not acceptable. He was of the view that the kind of goods imported were secondary quality stainless steel sheets and are accordingly assessed to custom duties and other taxes as well as done in this case.

3. The order in original so recorded on 14-4-1996 was assailed before the Collector (Appeals) without any success. By way of his order dated 21-10-1996 the learned First Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention that imported goods were "waste and scrap" as provided by explanatory note to section 15 of the Pakistan Tariff Customs. Therefore, these were refused to be accepted. He agreed with the Adjudicating Officer that the imported goods were of secondary quality properly falling under the head and liable to be assessed at the rate of the Department as done in this case.

3A. On further appeal the Tribunal maintained the orders of the Revenue Authorities for almost similar reasons.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal a question of law arises if the Custom Authorities were competent to value the consignment without recourse to the prices of country of origin. However, we are not persuaded to agree. The issue if the consignment did not answer the specifications of contract between the parties or that these were of secondary quality leviable to duties and taxes under the aforesaid PCT Heading is necessarily a question of fact which can hardly be a subject-matte: of appeal to this Court. The appellant claimed the consignment to be secondary quality and on his request a physical inspection of the same was made by the Revenue Authorities. Having done so they concluded for sufficient reasons and material on record that the consignment was liable to custom duties and other taxes under the aforesaid heading. Therefore, as rightly observed by the learned First Appellate Authority there was no question of enhancement of valuation as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. The valuation having been assigned with reference to a particular PCT Heading it cannot be said that the Revenue had enhanced the value of the consignment. The issue as already observed if the consignment was of any inferior quality cannot be adjudged in these proceedings. Particularly in view of the fact that the appellant has already got the consignment cleared after payment of usual taxes and duties.

5. In this view of the matter reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on re: Collector of Central and Land Customs v. Imdad Ali (1969 SCMR 708) re: Eastern Rice Syndicate v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1959 3C (Pak.) 364) and re: M/s. Kausar Trading Co. v. Government of Pakistan, C.B.R. (1986 CLC 612) is hardly of any avail.

6. Appeal dismissed.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./W-58/LAppeal dismissed.