2004 PLP 417 (PTD)
Messrs COOL FRIDGE (PVT.) LTD. through Commercial Manager Versus CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES TAX AND CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, NABAH ROAD, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 2004 PLP 417 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and M. Bilal Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs COOL FRIDGE (PVT.) LTD. through Commercial Manager Versus CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES TAX AND CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, NABAH ROAD, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 417 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 417 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and M. Bilal Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 417 (PTD) (Messrs COOL FRIDGE (PVT.) LTD. through Commercial Manager Versus CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES TAX AND CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, NABAH ROAD, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzada Mazhar for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.25 & 196
Valuation -of imported goods, determination of
Appeal before High Court
Importer declared value of imported goods as U.S.$275 per unit, but Adjudicating Officer/Deputy Collector after requisite investigation abroad, assessed value of imported goods as U.S.$295 and such assessment was upheld by the Custom Appellate Tribunal
Importer had challenged concurrent orders in appeal before High Court on the ground that assessment of Authority was arbitrary as Adjudicating Officer did not issue any notice to the importer before assessing goods and that, both Tribunals below had not considered evidence which importer wanted to rely upon and that value assessed by the Adjudicating Officer was excessive
Order passed by Adjudicating Officer had clearly shown that importer was provided an opportunity for hearing and was requested to produce any material evidence in support of his claim for acceptance of value of goods declared by him, but he failed to substantiate his claim
No reference had been made by the importer either in appeal before Custom Appellate Tribunal or in the body of appeal before High Court as to what evidence importer wanted to produce in support of his claim that value of the goods as declared by him should be accepted by Customs Department-- Forums below had determined value of goods imported by importer after considering evidence available on record and Adjudicating Officer had also prepared a chart showing: as to how he had calculated the value, it could not, in circumstances, be said that orders passed by Adjudicating Officer or by Customs Appellate Tribunal were arbitrary
Appeal filed by importer under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, could only be maintained if a question of law had been raised
No question of law being discernible to warrant interference-in appeal, same-was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Difference Total Involved Taxes 01 3101 7.2.95 384 Unit US$ 275 Unit US$ 295 Unit US$ 295 Unit US$ Unit Rs.2.07 845 02 4184 16.4.95 1920 Unit US$ 275 Unit US$ 395.69 Unit US$ 295 Unit US$ 20 Pc x 1920 US$ 38400. K Rs.10,39 844 In the afore-referred circumstances it cannot be argued that the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer or by the Appellate Tribunal are arbitrary. This is an appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, and would be maintainable only if a question of law has been raised. No question of law is discernible to warrant interference in appeal. The appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./C-230/L Appeal dismissed.