Messrs SAMEER ENTERPRISES VS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS
2005 P T D 1429
[Lahore High Court]
Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ
Messrs SAMEER ENTERPRISES
versus
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS
C. A. No. 105 of 2003, decided on 26/06/2003.
Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss. 25 & 196---Determination of customs value of goods---Appeal to High Court---Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication) ordered assessment of imported goods at the unit price of US $ 243 per set and ordered the importer to pay amount accordingly as duty/Taxes along with penalty and said order was maintained by Appellate Tribunal---Validity---Held, in the face of validity of transaction value of identical goods, it was not possible to approve deductive value in terms of subsection (7) of S.25 of Customs Act,1969---Unit value of US $ 243 per piece, in circumstances, was correctly determined by Adjudicating Officer and was rightly maintained by Appellate Tribunal---View so expressed and finding so recorded had not been shown suffering from any illegality, rather it found support from subsection (10) of S.25 of Customs Act, 1969---No question of law having arisen to warrant interference by High Court under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, appeal was dismissed.
Syed Nazir Hussain Shah for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 26th June, 2003.
ORDER
Order, dated 5-5-2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal was partly allowed by reducing the penalty from Rs.1 lac to Rs.25,000 has been assailed through this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard whose principal contention is that the report of the Enquiry Committee was unjustifiably ignored and discarded by the Customs Authorities and Tribunal; and that the valuation has been made on higher side by adopting incorrect criteria.
On importation of goods "XSZ-107 BN Microscopes", 100 pieces from Shanghai China the appellant sought clearance of the consignment vide bill of entry No.3615, dated 14-5-2001 declaring the value thereof at US $37 per piece with the Customs Authorities. In view of the alleged under-valuation a show-cause notice was issued by the Adjudicating Officer proposing the assessment and recovery of Rs.6,86,754 as duty/taxes along with penal action. It was contested by the appellant. Vide order, dated 30-7-2001 the Adjudicating Officer directed the Additional Collector of Customs to finalize the value ascertained in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 imposing fine equal to the amount of duty/taxes attempted to be evaded along with penalty of Rs.50,000. On appeal the learned Tribunal remanded the case to the Adjudicating Officer for de novo consideration when vide order, dated 6-10-2001 Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Lahore ordered the assessment of the goods at the unit price of US $ 243 per set and ordered the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.6,86,754 as duty/taxes along with penalty of Rs.1 lac. That order was maintained by the learned Tribunal by dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on 6-4-2002. Custom Appeal No.218 of 2002 was filed before this Court wherein the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. It is in that sequel that the impugned order, dated 5-5-2003 has been passed by the learned Tribunal.
On consideration of the material and the relevant provisions, the view taken by the Tribunal is that "methods of valuation given in the above-mentioned subsections of section 25 are to be applied in a sequential order". It has been observed that "The method of ascertaining valuethroughinquirycommitteewascertainlycoveredundersub-section (7) of section 25, subsection (10) of section 25 ibid places a bar from jumping the fence and requires that these methodsare to be followed in sequential order. In the face ofvalidity of transaction value of identical goods (in terms of subsection (5) of section 25 ibid), it isnot possible to approve deductive value in terms of subsection (7) of section 25, ibid. Accordingly we hold that unit value of US$ 243 per piece was correctly determined by the Adjudicating Officer who passed Order-in-Original No.89 of 2001, dated 16-10-2001". The view so expressed and finding recorded has not been shown suffering from any illegality, rather it finds support from subsection (10) of section 25 of the Act. No question of law arises, to warrant interference under section 196 of the Act.
We, thus find no justification to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal accordingly.
H.B.T./S-339/LAppeal dismissed.