M.A.H. TRADERS through Proprietor VS DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, 2009 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 943 (2009)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss.25(1) & 25-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Enhancement of value of imported goods against its declared value on ground of receipt of new valuation advice---Validity---Such advice did not show method of its preparation, but was repetition of method being applied earlier---Such advice did not find mention of unit price or its retail price in market---Such advice should have been based upon proper discussion and reference to value of disputed items---High Court set aside impugned order in circumstances.

Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner.

Ch. Zafar Iqbal for Respondent-Department.

ORDER

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---The petitioner through this constitutional petition being aggrieved of an order of the respondent No.4, has prayed that the petitioner who is engaged in the business of import of hardware items/articles, imported consignment cutting and grinding discs and Cylinder Head of different seizes from China of total import price of US$ 4,460 on 20-8-2008. The petitioner filed GD on 11-10-2008 claiming assessment on the basis of transaction value in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. The consignment of the petitioner was examined and found in accordance with the declaration made by the petitioner, accordingly the assessment was made and while making appraisement, the value of consignment was enhanced to US$ 43,050 against the declared value of US$ 4,640. The value assessed of the petitioner was enhanced by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that they have received new Valuation Advice, dated 28-5-2008 and that the same would be applied to the goods of the petitioner on the basis of Valuation Advice issued by respondent No.4. The same was objected by the petitioner on the ground that the said value was not validly issued being against the provisions of substantive law; secondly the value has been fixed at the very higher side and thirdly that the identical goods were being assessed at lower value by the other custom station but the request of the petitioner was not acceded.

2. The legal proposition of the instant case has already been dealt with by this Court while accepting the Constitutional Petition No.9263 of 2008. His lordship while accepting the appeal has observed as under:--

"The only discussion for arriving at a final conclusion is that after meeting with stakeholders a local inquiry was also conducted for arriving at fair value. "All the inquiries were complied and necessary deduction of allowable counts of profits and dues and taxes were made as per provisions of deductive valuation method under section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969". This is obviously not enough for preparing a valuation ruling which is most likely to be made applicable on dozens or hundreds of the importers. The discussion is hypothetical. Not a single reference has been given in support of the claim of compilation of inquiries and calculation of necessary deductions etc. Further, it speaks of the findings of the investigation also but there is no specific mentioning as to what was the result of the said investigation directly. The entire language is based upon a general discussion without being particular and direct on the issue. There is, therefore, no reason for this Court to agree with the learned legal advisor that the compliance has been made as was legally required. The advice speaks of non-acceptance of the transportable value of the identical and similar goods for the reason that the quality of the product is different but, however, it has not mentioned what convinced the authority to adopt deductive valuation method for preparation of the said ruling. As already said, it should have been based upon proper discussion and reference to the value of the said items. Neither the unit price has been mentioned nor its retail price in the market has been identified. The method, in fact, is again the same repetition as was being done earlier, except, that the nomenclature of the method is now, being referred. There is, therefore, no reason for this Court to agree with the respondent's counsel that the advice is valid, lawful and applicable on the facts of this case.

The direction, therefore, is hereby issued to the Customs Authorities to reappraise the value of the consignment either after preparing a fresh valuation ruling in strict compliance of section 25-A(i) or to follow the sequential order, provided under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. This obviously means that the order, through which the valuation has been determined, as US$ 23030 stands set aside and the appeal is accordingly accepted."

3. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in the aforesaid constitutional petition, the order through which the valuation has been determined as US$ 43,050 stands set aside and this petition is also accepted with no order as to costs.

S.A.K./M-84/LPetition accepted.