SAA IMPORT AND EXPORTS VS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
2019 P T D (Trib.) 365
[Customs Appellate Tribunal]
Before Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi, Member (Judicial-I) and Muhammad Nazim Saleem, Member (Technical-II)
Messrs SAA IMPORT AND EXPORTS and 4 others
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL and another
Customs Appeals Nos.K-388 to K-390, K-490 and K-1416 of 2017, decided on 27/02/2018.
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss. 25, 25-A & 25-D---Customs value of goods---Determination---Importers, being aggrieved from Valuation Ruling by Director General Customs Valuation, filed a revision application with Director (Valuation), contending that despite determination of prices under S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969, Director General Customs Valuation committed a grave illegality in addition to discrimination with the importers, in increasing the value in comparison to earlier valuation rulings---Importers were neither called nor been noticed for their participation before Director General Customs Valuation and order in revision was passed in persona creating the order in rem---Director General, Customs Valuation, could exercise powers and discharge duties under Ss.25-A & 32 of Customs Act, 1969---Subsection (3) of S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, empowered the Director General Customs Valuation to determine the customs value of imported goods in case of any conflict in the customs value determined under S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969---Impugned orders passed by the authorities to govern the procedure of adjudication had no warrant under the law, and derogatory from the statutory provisions of law as envisaged under S. 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969---Order-in-revision passed by the Director General Customs Valuation, having no adherence with the statutory requirements; being derogatory to the specific provisions of S.25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, was declared as without lawful authority and was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
S.M. Naqi son of Syed Muhammad Hussain, Karachi v. Collector of Customs (Adjudication-I) and others Customs Reference No.157 of 2008; AIR 1954 SC 747; AIR 1963 SC 1811; AIR 1970 SC 1453; AIR 1971 SC 1017; PLD 2005 SC 193; 2002 SCMR 312; 2009 PTD 1507; 2005 SCMR 492 and Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2005 SC 482 ref.
(b) Jurisdiction---
----If the mandatory condition for exercising of jurisdiction by a court, Tribunal or Authority is not fulfilled then the entire proceedings to follow would become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction---Any order passed in continuation of said proceedings or revisions equally would suffer from illegalities and would be without jurisdiction.
Abdul Latif for Appellants (C.As. Nos. K-388 to K-390 of 2017).
Nadeem Mirza for Appellant (C.As. Nos. K-490 and K-1416 of 2017).
Allison Stephen, P.A. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th December, 2017.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I).--These appeals have been directed under Section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969, against Order-in-Revision No.313/2017, dated 28.02.2017, passed by the Director General of Customs Valuation, Custom House, Karachi. All appeals have identical issues of law and facts and are therefore being heard, dealt with and disposed of simultaneously through this single consolidated judgment in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in Customs Reference No.157/2008 (S.M. Naqi son of Syed Muhammad Hussain, Karachi v. Collector of Customs (Adjudication-I) and others, Karachi).
2.Since, these five (05) appeals are based on similar facts and questions of law, therefore, it is needless to reproduce facts of each case separately, hence for reference the facts of Appeal No. K-490/2017 are taken into consideration, the appellant is a commercial importer and stockiest/whole seller of motorcycle parts and in the said capacity is being registered with the FBR and RTO. they being aggrieved from Valuation Ruling No. 967/2016 dated 16.11.2016 issued by respondent No. 1 filed a revision application with the respondent No. 2 with the submission, that despite determination of prices under the provision of subsection (9) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, the respondent No. 1 committed a grave illegality in addition to discrimination with the commercial importer as he maintained the value of parts of OEM Brands and increased the values of non genuine motorcycle parts in comparison to the earlier Valuation Ruling No. 685/2014 dated 15.09.2014, No. 64/ 2014 dated 31.03.2014 and No. 458/2012 dated 24.05.2012, the respondent No. 2 instead of deciding the revision application of the appellant took for decision a revision application of a manufacturer namely Messrs Super Tech Auto Parts (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and re-determined/enhanced the value of spokes and nipples only on the basis of working provided by him, based on erroneous and misleading facts and prices, while ignoring the fact that the revision application against the valuation ruling though which customs value of the imported goods or class of goods has been determined by respondent No. 1 and revision application of manufacturer is not maintainable under the provision of Section 25D of the Act and as such has no locus standi. This act of his constrained the appellant to challenge the vires of the revision order dated 28.02.2017 in the absence of no order on the revision application of the appellant, which is still pending. Since, the respondent No. 2 as determined the prices of spokes and nipples in the absence of availability of power under the provision of Section 25A, the right of appellant accrued for filing revision application as he is being hit by the determination of the enhanced value of the spokes and nipples and his locus standi in the given circumstances cannot be disputed and his appeal is maintainable. As adumbrated through this appeal the vires of revision order dated 28.02.2017 and valuation ruling No. 967/2016 dated 16.11.2016 is challenged before the Hon'ble Tribunal for decision after taking into consideration on the facts incorporated in Memo of Appeal.
3.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Revision No.313/2017, dated 28.02.2017, the appellants filed the instant appeals before this Tribunal on the grounds incorporated in the Memo of Appeal.
4.On the date of hearing, Mr. Abdul Latif, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Customs Appeals Nos.K-388 to 390/2017) and Mr. Nadeem Mirza, Consultant, appeared on behalf of the Appellants (C.As.Nos.K-490 and 1416/2017). Both reiterated the contents of facts and grounds of Memo. of Appeal and contended that, the objections raised by the office of the Tribunal about the maintainability of the appeals, appellant is also required to prove their locus standi as the appellants were not the party before the Director General valuation nor they challenged the Valuation Ruling under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969. In terms of expression of Section 194A ibid. a person against whom revision order has been passed has the right of appeal. The provision of Section 194A of the Customs Act, 1969, expressly empowers "any person" aggrieved may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed in revision by the Director-General Customs, Valuation, irrespective of the fact that whether the revision was filed by him or any other person. Therefore, the appellant rightly filed appeal as per the expression of Section 194A and maintainable under law. They further contended that, the expression of section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969, inscribe that, indeed respondent No. 2 is empowered to re-determine the value of any imported goods under the provision of subsection (3) of Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 upon receipt of representation in case of conflicting ruling of the same item infield i.e. one issued by Collector of Customs and other by Director, Directorate General of Valuation under the provision of Section 25A and both differs from each other and for resolving the conflict and the representation so filed should be by an importer, not manufacturer, which through any stretch of imagination least fall within the ambit of any person or aggrieved person. He is a non entity and so Messrs Super Tech Auto Parts (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and therefore has no locus standi to approach either of the respondent for determination of the value of the imported goods or revision of those in accordance with his desires. Issuing notice or calling for meeting to a manufacturer for determination of custom value of the imported goods by the respondent No. 1 and entertaining his revision application against valuation ruling by the respondent No. 2 are tantamount to creating of monopoly, which find no place in Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 and under the respective Article of 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees freedom of trade, business or profession. This defect is not curable under law and rendered the order-in-revision as non-existent and not enforceable under law, hence void and ab-initio. Notwithstanding, to the above legality the appellant is at loss to digest the prices provided by Messrs Super Tech Auto Parts (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi of the raw material of spokes and nipples after levy of duty and taxes as US$. 1.30 and without as US$. 0.86/kg as the prices of raw material used in manufacture of these is low carbon steel wire rod and value of which available in data reservoir maintained by the PRAL in terms of Rule 110 of the period expressed in Rule 107(a) of Customs Rules, 2001 ranges between US$ 0.326 to 0.4150/kg and landed cost comes in between US$. 0.489 and 0.623/kg not US$ 1.30. The respondent No. 2 with due respect as an employee of manufacturer accepted the erroneous figure and also ignored the facts that the prices of crude oil is on declination and at present i.e. 33.47% lesser i.e. US$. 65.89 in 2016 as against US$ 99.05/barrel in the year 2012 and data for the last 03 years of spokes and nipples i.e. assessment (although it is erroneous as it should be of import) is not more than US$ 0.60/kg, which respondent No. 2 completely ignored for pleasing manufacturer. They further contended that, the ruling issued by respondent No. 1, the appellant failed to digest the rationale of maintaining the prices of genuine parts i.e. OEM, when those should had been also increased, as the prices of OEM are always higher than the prices of non genuine parts. In this way the respondent No. 1 provided an edge to the manufacturer i.e. importing the parts on cheaper prices and selling their motorcycles after assembling on higher prices. This is in derogation of Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees freedom of trade, business or profession and Sub-Clause (b) restricts Regulation of Trade, Commerce or Industry for safe guarding the interest of the citizen through healthy and free competition. In the case of impugned ruling the applicant is being asked to pay excess amount of duty and taxes as against charged from manufacturer on OEM parts. This act/attitude negated the level playing field for maintaining of healthy and fair competition, instead created monopoly. Rendering the Valuation Ruling dated 16.11.2016 infringement of fundamental rights, this is not permissible under any circumstances and law laid down in the reported judgments AIR 1954 SC 747, AIR 1963 SC 1811, AIR 1970 SC 1453, AIR 1971 SC 1017, PLD 2005 SC 193. They further contended that the respondent No. 1 through the valuation ruling dated 16.11.2016 also committed an act of discrimination and this stood proved from the fact that the determined the prices of non commercial parts on higher value for levy of duty and taxes on the imported goods as against genuine parts (OEM) imported by the manufacturer of motorcycle on prices lower by more than 20% as compared to the prices determined for non genuine parts. The said act is tantamount to giving a differential treatment not permitted under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and stood validated from judgment of High Court of Sindh 2002 SCMR 312 and 2009 PTD 1507 the Hon'ble Superior Courts "there exist no power to target incidence of tax in such a way that similarly placed person be dealt not only this similarly, but discriminatingly". Whereas, in reported judgment 2005 SCMR 492. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "A facility allowed to some one and denied to other is discrimination". They further contended that, the respondents intention is apparent that, the import of non genuine auto parts should be stopped forthwith and exchequer be deprived from the revenue collection of leviable duty and taxes, which are direly needed by the State, by shifting availability of these in the open market either via smuggling or on exorbitant higher prices fixed by the cartel of manufacture, which is not appreciable at all being in derogation of Articles 4, 18, 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. They, therefore, prayed to the Hon'ble Tribunal allow the appeal by ordering that, the Order-in-Revision No.313/2017 dated 28.02.2017 is nullity to law being erroneous, discriminatory among others. The prices determined in the valuation ruling for OEM Parts shall also be applicable on the non-genuine parts as the same is fair and just and provide level playing field for the commercial importer.
5.No cross objections filed by the respondent in compliance of the subsection (4) of Section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969. However, learned representative of the department/Respondents, contended that, the Order-in-Revision No.313/2017, was issued on 28-02-2017 in respect of revision petition filed by the aggrieved parties against Valuation Ruling No.967/2016, dated 16-11-2016. The impugned Order-in-Revision itself is a speaking one which clearly reveals that a detailed deliberation was carried out by the Respondent No.(2) and on enquiry from different sources and description in the importers, the values of the subject goods were notified in a transparent manner. He further contended that, Respondent No. (2) is empowered to entertain the review petition filed by any aggrieved person under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, against the customs values determined in the relevant Valuation Ruling. Respondent No.(2) can revise the customs values on higher or lower side. He further contended that the customs values had not been determined on the prices provided by Messrs Super Tech Auto Parts (Pvt.) Ltd. The customs values were revised/determined after conducting inquiries from different sources. He also argued that the customs values through impugned Valuation Ruling were determined strictly keeping in view the valuation methods given in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 and after associating all stakeholders. But none of the stakeholders submitted the requisite documents particularly copies of sales tax paid invoices or corroboratory evidences in support of their contentions. Consequently, in the absence of the same, findings of market enquiry as envisaged under Section 25(7) of the Customs Act, 1969 were adopted to determine the customs value of Motorcycle Parts read with Fall Back Valuation Method in terms of Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969. He further contended that the impugned Valuation Ruling as well as Order-in-Revision itself is speaking one which clearly reveals the detailed background of the issue in association with relevant stakeholders. He prayed that, Order-in-Revision dated 28-02-2017 was issued after receipt of review petition under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, against the customs values of Valuation Ruling No.967/2016, dated 16-11-2016. As a result of revision proceedings the customs values of any goods may be revised either higher or lower. Accordingly, the Respondent No.(2) had revised the customs values under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969. On the other side; the Appellants had neither furnished their import documents/requisite documents particularly copies of sales tax paid invoices at the time of exercises for the determination of customs values under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, nor with this Appeal as to enable to verify the truth and accuracy of the transaction value. As per Rule-109 of the Valuation Rules issued under S.R.O. No.450(I)/2001, dated 18-06-2001 (Chapter-X) in the absence of valid import documents, the burden of prove correctness of transaction value shifts to the importers/Appellants. Since the appellants have not furnished the requisite documents, the appeal merits no consideration and is liable to be rejected accordingly.
6.Arguments heard and concluded. After perusal of the record as well as the arguments extended by both the parties it has been noticed and observed that, Section 194-A(e) of the Customs Act, 1969 clearly envisaged the mandatory rights of appellants. Appellants being importer neither been called nor been noticed for their participations before Director General Valuation and impugned revision order was passed in persona, but on the contrary the effect of the subject impugned Order-in-Revision created the effect as order in rem. As such the objections were accordingly removed. It is further observed that, determination of customs values of 'Motorcycle Parts' which were earlier determined vide Valuation Ruling No. 685/2014 dated 15.09.2014. Messrs D.S. Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., inter alia, challenged the said valuation ruling vide Suit Nos.2556/2014, 2557/2014 and 2558/2014 before the Honorable High Court of Sindh. The Honorable High Court suspended the said valuation ruling vide order dated 22.12.2014. The aforementioned motorcycle manufacturers also filed another Suit No. 166/2015 before the Honorable Singh High Court and challenged the values of OEM brand/genuine auto parts of impugned valuation ruling No.685 of 2014 dated 15.09.2014. The Honorable High Court allowed interim release of the consignments. Since the valuation ruling was suspended by the Honorable High Court, therefore, the Directorate General filed an urgent hearing application before the Honorable High Court of Sindh with prayer to allow the revision of Valuation Ruling No.685/2014 dated 15.09.2014 to reflect current price trend prevailing in the international market. The urgent hearing application was granted and the Honorable High Court modified the Court's order dated 22.12.2014 in Suit Nos.2556/2014, 2557/2014 and 2558/2014 and directed that the Directorate of valuation may proceed with the revision of valuation ruling in accordance with the law but suspended the applicability of valuation ruling No.685/2014 dated 15.09.2014 to the extent of aforementioned petitioners only. Therefore, an exercise was initiated to re-determine the customs values of motorcycle parts afresh in the light of existing international market prices in terms of Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969. After initiating the procedure to re-determine the customs valuation of motorcycle parts afresh, meetings were held with stakeholders and importers along with representatives of KCCI, All Pakistan Motorcycle Parts Importers and Dealers Association (APMSPIDA) including Pakistan Automotive Manufacturers Association (PAMA) and Pakistan Auto Parts Manufacturer Association (PAAPA). The subject impugned Valuation Ruling No. 967/2016 was issued on 16.11.2016 under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 and determine the customs values of motorcycle parts. Subject values were determined relying on the findings of market inquiry as envisaged under Section 29(7) of the Customs Act, 1969 same were adopted to read with 'Fall Back Method' under Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969. The said Valuation Ruling No.967/2016 dated 16.11.2016 was never challenged by any of the stakeholders participated during preparation of said impugned Valuation Ruling. Only one local manufacturer Messrs Super Tech Auto Parts (Pvt.) Ltd., filed the revision petition against the values determined vide Valuation Ruling No.967/2016 dated 16.11.2016 (the said impugned Valuation Ruling) and pray for to revise and re-determined the values of Spoke (un-plated) from US$ 1.00/kg to US$ 1.10/kg and for Spoke (plated) US$ 1.45/kg to US# 1.65/kg and accordingly pleaded to increase prices and enhanced the value of the subject items. Perusal of the impugned Order-in-Revision and contents mentioned at Paras Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are found contradictory from overall assessment and observations made therein by the Director General Valuation at the time of passing the impugned Order-in-Revision. The contentions of local manufacturer Messrs Super Tech Auto Parts (Pvt.) Ltd., are considered which are based on erroneous and mis-leading facts. Irrespective of the fact that whether the revision was filed by Messrs Super Tech Auto Pars (Pvt.) Ltd., for re-determination of the values of Spokes is admissible under the warrant of law specially under the statutory obligation envisaged under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, if it is so, then, how the, Director General Valuation has the jurisdiction under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 to re-determine the values of the goods already determined in compliance of Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969. It is also questionable, how the director General Valuation inserted a new category of goods and determine their values while sitting under the jurisdiction assumed under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, and enhanced the values of Spokes (Chromed and Un-Chromed Sr. Nos. 46 and 47) and added new categories of goods Nipples (Chromed and Un-Chromed Sr. No.47-A and Spokes with Nipple Chromed and Un-Chromed Sr. No.47-B) of the impugned Valuation Ruling.
7.Now, we as being the custodian of law, prefers to reply the question and observe that, whether the Director General Valuation has any warrant under the law to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 25A, subsection (3) of the Customs Act, 1969 at the time, while sitting under the jurisdiction of Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969. Simultaneously (at the same time) for clarification, the contents of both the sections need to be referred and read as under:--
[25D. Revision of the value determined:--Where the customs value has been determined under section 25A by the Collector of Customs or Director of Valuation the revision petition may be filed before the Director General of Valuation within thirty days from the date of determination of customs value and any proceedings pending before any court, authority or tribunal shall be referred to the Director General for the decision]
[25A. Power to determine the Customs value:-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in section 25, the Collector of Customs on his own motion, or the Director of Customs Valuation [on his own motion or] on a reference made to him by any person [or an officer of Customs], may determine the customs value of any goods or category of goods imported into or exported out of Pakistan, after following the methods laid down in section 25, whichever is applicable.
(2) The Customs value determined under subsection (1) shall be the applicable customs value for assessment of the relevant imported or exported goods.
(3) In case of any conflict in the customs value determined under subsection (1), the Director General of Customs Valuation shall determine the applicable customs value.]
(4) The customs value determined under subsection (1) or, as the case may be, under subsection (3), shall be applicable until and unless revised or rescinded by the competent authority.
8.No doubt, S.R.O. 495(I)/2007 dated 09.06.2007 specify the powers and duties of the officers of the Directorate General of Customs Valuation. At the S. No. 1 of the Table of S.R.O. 495(I)/2007 dated 09.06.2007, the Director General, Customs Valuation is empowered to exercise powers and discharge duties under Sections 25A and 32 of Customs Act, 1969. Subsection (3) of Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 empowers the Director General of Customs Valuation to determine the customs value of any imported goods in case of any conflict in the customs value determined under Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969.
9.It is clear from the contents of Section 25D that a revision petition may be filed before the Director General within thirty days from the date of determination of customs value and in case of jurisdiction of Director General under section 25A(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, Collector of Customs or Director Customs Valuation on his own motion or on a reference made to him by any person or officer of customs may determine the customs value. The Director General only has the power or jurisdiction under subsection (3) of Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969, in case of any conflict in the customs values already determined under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 25A, shall determine the "applicable Customs value". Wisdom behind the mind of legislature is evident from the interpretation of two terms, "applicable customs value" and "determination of customs value". Determination of customs value exclusively lies under the jurisdiction, invoked by the Director Valuation. But, jurisdiction with reference to "applicable customs values" restricted with the case of any "conflict" about the application of customs value, to whom referred at the time of assessment or reflected/disputed from the valuation advice in case of any ambiguity which needs and requires clarification by the Director General, that should be specific through any reference or application made thereon by any person. In present particular cases only revision petition was filed before the Director General under Section 25D, no application or reference under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 in particular was pending before the Director General at the time of passing the said impugned revision order. Significantly said order is devoid from structural principle of statutory obligations, as made and observed by the superior courts. Particularly the judgement authored by Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhery, in the case of Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan published in PLD 2005 SC 482, while observing the issue of jurisdiction. It held that the question of jurisdiction in form is always considered to be very important and no order passed by a court or a forum having no jurisdiction, even if it is found to be correct on merits, is not sustainable. The jurisdiction of a court lays down a foundation stone for jurisdiction or as quasi judicial functions to exercise its powers/authority and no sooner the question of jurisdiction is determined in negative. The whole edifice of such defective proceeding is bound to crumble down. It is also an elementary principle of law that if the mandatory condition for exercising of jurisdiction by a Court, Tribunal or authority is not fulfill then the entire proceeding to follow become illegal and suffers from want of jurisdiction. Any order passed in continuation of these proceedings in built or revisions equally suffers from illegalities and are without jurisdiction. It is one of the mandatory requirement if the statute enacts with certain action shall be taken in a certain manner and courts are required to do justice between the parties in accordance with the provisions of law, as the litigant who approach the court for the relief is bound to substitute with the procedure had been adopted by him in accordance with law, because it is elementary principle of law that if a particular thing is required to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that manner, otherwise it should not be done at all. In these present cases the impugned Revision Order passed by the Respondents to govern the procedure of the adjudication, have no warrant under the law, which is exclusively violative and derogatory from the statutory provisions of law, as envisaged under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969.
10.It is also important to observe and note here that Section 25A "Pre-determination of the customs value, such determination can only apply in relation to goods not only imported at the time that the determination is issued", it is only Section 25 of the Customs Act which is applicable. The Valuation Ruling issued under Section 25A, only apply for a certain period and no more, this expression has been defined in Chapter-XI of the Rules, (in Rule 107 meaning) "within 90 days prior to the importation or within 90 days after the importation of goods being valued". In our view Valuation Ruling must therefore ordinarily be regarded as well as for a period of 90 days from the date of issue. After the amendment of Section 25A subsection (4) of the Customs Act through Finance Act, 2010 provides that a Valuation Ruling "shall be applicable until or unless revised or rescinded by the competent authority" while the Valuation Ruling will continue to hold in the field unless revised or rescinded, any aggrieved importer has the right to approach the concerned officer after the 90 days period mentioned above and he would then have to give reasons in writing under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1967, why the Ruling has not been revised or rescinded. As such the observations enhancement and additions made by the Director General Valuation in the impugned Valuation Ruling are perverse and derogatory from the statute are ultra viral and without lawful authority.
11.On the basis of ably deliberations, and by getting the strength, what has been stated and observed herein above particularly the interpretation of law and legal prepositions, in the light of prescribed law and to follow the ratio decidendi as observed by the superior courts, along with our additional observations made therein, the subject Order-in-Revision No.313/2017 dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Director General (Valuation), does not have any adherence with the statutory requirements, also derogatory from the specific provision of Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, declared without lawful authority, hereby set aside. Appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to cost.
12.Judgement passed and announced accordingly.
HBT/18/Tax(Trib.)Appeals allowed.