RASHID ARMS COMPANY through Proprietor VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division, 2008 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1742 (2008)

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

----Ss. 25 & 25-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods on basis of valuation advice---Competent Authority---Grievance of the petitioner was that valuation advice under S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969 having been issued by an Authority which was non-existent in the said Section, same was without jurisdiction---Petitioner had argued that such and similar valuation advices issued by the Authorities, not mentioned in S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 had already been held to be as ultra vires to the provisions of Customs Act, 1969 by the High Court in a number of such petitions---Authority which had issued impugned valuation ruling was Deputy Director, but S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 did not grant or delegate powers to a Deputy Director to issue such a direction---Such valuation ruling could be issued by the Collector of Customs on his own motion or Director of Customs Valuation on reference made to him by any person---Deputy Director not figuring any where in S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, constitutional petition was allowed in the manner that the value determined on the basis of an illegal valuation ruling was cancelled---Customs Authorities would revalue the consignment ignoring the same by resorting to S.25 of Customs Act, 1969.

(b) Interpretation of statutes---

----Legislation---Legislation was always for the public-at-large with the spirit of the welfare of State as well as its citizens--Progressive changes in law were made to match the circumstances with progress and the development in the society.

Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.

Ehsan Ullah Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st July, 2008.

JUDGMENT

KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J.----By this single judgment, I would like to dispose of Writ Petition No.8483 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.8484 of 2008 as common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions.

2. The only grievance of petitioner is that valuation advice under section 25-A has been issued by an authority which is non-existent in the said section. The same, therefore, is without jurisdiction.

3. It has inter alia been argued that such and similar valuation advices issued by the authorities, not mentioned in section 25-A have already been held to be as ultra vires to the provisions of Customs. Act, 1969, by this Court in a number of such petitions. It has, therefore, been urged that the value determined in this case on the basis of a valuation advice which is without jurisdiction, may be declared as illegal and be cancelled.

4. The learned Legal Advisor of the department vehemently opposed the arguments. He says that it is, a case of Arms and Ammunition and the value declared by the respondents is ridiculous. He produced certain documents with regard to price of such arms and ammunition in international market and also said that the case is subject to the determination of the balance quota of the petitioner etc. He, however, could not argue much with regard to the status of the valuation advice impugned in this case.

5. Learned Legal Advisor concern about the proper valuation is appreciable, but, however, this is not an issue in the present writ petition. This Court has already in its order announced in Writ Petition No.2415 of 2007 has shown its displeasure for the trend amongst the importers of under declaration of the value of import. Every law-abiding citizen of this country has its concern over the same and nobody will object to the determination of the appropriate value of the such arms and ammunition if the same is done under appropriate procedure prescribed by law for the said purpose.

6. The legislation is always for the public-at-large with the spirit of the welfare of State as well as of its citizens. Progressive changes in law are made to match the circumstances with progress and the development in the society. The sections under discussion have also been brought to change keeping in view the same spirit. The same, therefore, should be applied strictly and following the spirit of its legislation. This Court, therefore, feels that its earlier judgment on the issue in terms of Writ Petition No.2415 of 2007 is applicable on all fours.

7. The authority which has issued the impugned valuation ruling is Deputy Director. Section 25-A does not grant or delegate powers to a Deputy Director to issue such a direction. This valuation ruling under section 25-A, as was the then obtaining in the Customs Act can be issued by the Collector of Customs on his own motion or Director of Customs Valuation on reference made to him by any person. The Deputy Director does not figure any where in the above mentioned section. This Court, therefore, without entering into further discussion allow this writ petition in the manner that the value determined on the basis of an illegal valuation ruling in hereby cancelled. The customs authorities shall revalue the consignment ignoring the same by resorting to section 25 and following the procedure prescribed there.

8. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

H.B.T./R-35/LPetition allowed.