GUL INDUSTRIAL CONCERN through Managing Director VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM'S COLLECTORATE, AT CUSTOM'S CUSTOMS HOUSE LAHORE, 2008 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 337 (2008)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S.25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of imported goods---Petitioner imported goods and sought its clearance through G.D.---Department on the basis of Customs computerized data assessed and released the consignment by determining the transaction value under S.25(5) of Customs Act, 1969 after payment of adjudged customs duty and other taxes---Subsequently Directorate of Customs Valuation and P.C.A. vide its letter in question with respect to suo motu post importation check findings referred the matter for assessment purposes---Validity---Letter referred by the petitioner was only a communication of an information from Directorate of Valuation and P.C.A. addressed to Collector of Customs which spoke of a post importation check carried out by Directorate---That check was with regard to under-invoicing in, the import of filters on the basis of declared value in the original invoice and the evidential invoice---Such was the stage of initial inquiry by the Department---Letter in question was an internal communication and same had neither been sent to the petitioner nor was addressed to it---Filing of constitutional petition on the basis of such a letter was not correct---Constitutional petition, in circumstances was premature and there was no order in the field causing any prejudice to the petitioner---Constitutional petition being premature was dismissed.

Mian Abid Ahmad for Appellant.

Rana Abdul Hamid Addl. A.-G. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 10th January, 2008.

JUDGMENT

KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J.---Brief facts leading to this writ petition are that petitioner imported goods and sought its clearance through G.D. No.5295. The respondents on the basis of Karachi Customs Computerized data assessed and released the consignment by determining the transaction value under section 25(5) of the Act after payment of adjudged customs duty and other taxes. Subsequently the Directorate of Custom Valuation and PCA Karachi vide its letter No.1/0112006-VA/4653, dated 13-7-2006 with respect to suo motu post importation check findings referred the matter for assessment purposes. The petitioner on receipt of said letter has come before this Court on the basis of following arguments:--

(1) That before suo motu importation check of the goods imported by him on the basis of information received from the supplier i.e. Messrs Donaldson Singapore was without first issuance of notice to him.

(2) That the action of making inquiry without making the petitioner a party is against law and rules including section 25-A(3) and of course section 25 of the Act.

(3) That the respondents are trying to apply the decision of the case of Messrs Chaman International and Messrs Alpha Enterprises in which the assessment is against the provisions of section 25 of the Act.

2. The case of respondent however, is that the letter C. No.1/D/ 2006-VA/4653, dated 13-7-2006 received on 20-7-2006 by Collector Customs through Diary No.350 is only an intimation of the information received by the department. This is not an order and the petitioner always has a right to challenge after an order is passed. Not only that proper remedy is provided in original law but obviously other remedies are also available.

3. Heard. Record perused: The letter referred by the petitioner is only a communication of an information from Directorate of Valuation and PCA Karachi addressed to Collector of Customs, Customs House Lahore and same speaks of a post important check carried .`out by 13 Directorate. This check is with regard to under invoicing in the import of filters on the basis of declared value in the original invoice, and 'the evidential invoice. This is the stage of initial inquiry by the department.

The letter is an internal communication and same has neither been sent to the petitioner nor is addressed to him. Filing of a writ petition on the basis of such a letter is not correct. This petition, therefore, is pre-mature. There is no order in the field causing any prejudice to the petitioner and case as per impugned letter is only at processing stage. The petitioner obviously can always join the proceedings on the basis of his own record and evidence whenever custom authorities convey him with their finding and observation. This writ petition therefore, is considered premature, hence, dismissed.

H.B.T./G-99/LPetition dismissed.