MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad, 2007 PTD-KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH 198 (2006)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 25---Imported goods, valuation of---Method---Provisions of law contained in various subsections of S.25 of Customs Act, 1969 must be applied in sequential order.

Rehan Umer v. Collector of Customs 2006 PTD 909 and Messrs Pakistan Dry Battery Manufacturers- Association v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 674 fol.

Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Petitioner.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No.3.

ORDER

The point involved in this petition is short and therefore, the petition is disposed of at the Katcha Peshi Stage.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he imported 1800 cartons of `Yamama Cake' from Saudi Arabia and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods. The declared value was not accepted and the Directorate of Customs Valuation and PCA, Customs House, Karachi, respondent No.3, issued a letter, dated 18-4-2006 directing that the valuation be determined under subsection (7) of section 25 of the Customs Act, and recovery action may be initiated. According to the petitioner no resort could be made to subsection (7) of section 25 directly, without re-course in the first instance, to the provisions contained in subsections (1) to (4) of section 25 and thereafter under subsections (5) and (6) in sequential order. He has submitted that the point agitated in petition already stands decided by this Court, in the case of Rehan Umer v. Collector of Customs, 2006 PTD 909 and in another case Messrs Pakistan Dry Battery Manufacturers Association v. Federation of Pakistan, 2006 PTD 674.

The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed their Para-wise comments, wherein it is stated by the respondent No.3, that they have communicated Customs Valuation under subsection (7) of section 25 of the Customs Act, to Board in compliance with the Board's letter C. No.4(I)/S/Val/2006, dated 13-2-2006. The respondent No.2 has stated that the valuation advice given by the respondent No.3 was shown to the petitioner at the time of assessment. The respondent No.2 who is required to make the assessment has not disputed the proposition of law that the provisions contained in various subsections of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 are to be applied in sequential order, as specified in subsection (10) of section 25 of the Customs Act, and fully discussed and considered in the two judgments by this Court on which the petitioner has placed reliance.

In the above circumstances, the petition along with listed application is disposed of in the term that the respondent No.2 shall immediately initiate fresh assessment proceedings keeping in view the law as discussed by this Court in the two judgments referred to above. The petitioner shall furnish all necessary information if called, in addition to the information already furnished to the department.

S.A.K./M-142/KOrder accordingly.