1990 PLP 834 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 25‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Determination of value of goods‑‑‑Department while determining value of goods under S. 25 of Customs Act,1969 is duty bound to enclose evidence on basis of which valuation disclosed by importer was rejected and fresh determination of value under S. 25 of the Act was made‑‑‑Importer in such a case is also entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal in support of valuation declared by him in Bill of Entry‑‑‑Department determining valuation of importer's goods under S. 25 but unable to point out any material on record on basis of which such valuation was made‑‑‑Valuation so made declared was as without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Department was directed to redetermine valuation of consignment under S. 25 of Customs Act after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and showing him evidence which Department proposed to use against him. Abul Khair Ansari for Petitioner. Hussain Adil Khatri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th May, 1989. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIOUI, J.‑‑The petitioner in the above case imported Teak‑Wood from Burma against Import Licence No.200036 dated 17‑9 1979. The goods arrived at Karachi Port in two consignments vide; Index No.23 IGM No.29 dated 6‑1‑1980, Index No.16 IOM No.437 dated 5‑4‑1980. The petitioner submitted In‑bond Bills of Entry dated 18‑3‑1980 and 3‑5‑1980 on which customs duty was assessed on the value declared by the petitioner in the respective Bills of Entry. Subsequently in June, 1981 upon payment of customs duty and other charges assessed by the customs department the consignments were ex‑bonded. On 3‑9‑1981 the petitioner was served with notices by respondent No.4 in which it was alleged that petitioner had violated section 26 of the Customs Act. The case of the petitioner is that they submitted a reply to the above show‑cause notices on 9‑9‑1981 but it is denied by the respondents. It is stated in the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of respondents that neither any reply was received to the show‑cause notices nor any one appeared on the date of hearing. On 28‑1‑1982 respondent No.4 by two letters of the same date called upon the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.18,499 and Rs.21,859 respectively which' was allegedly short recovered as customs duty on account of alleged under valuation of the consignments, and directed the petitioner to deposit the same with the department. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that they filed a Revision Application against above order before the Board of Revenue on 1‑2 1982 but till today their revision application has not been disposed of. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner before us is that the valuation declared by the petitioner in their Bills of Entry was not only accepted by the Customs but customs duty was also accordingly assessed which was paid at the time of release of the consignment from the Bond and as such there was no justification for issuing the notices for revising the value of consignment. It is also contended by the petitioner that the value determined by respondent No.4, under section 25 of the Customs Act, is based on no evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that as the petitioner had not appeared in response to the notices, nor had they submitted any reply to the show‑cause notice, respondent No.4, rightly determined the value of the consignments and demanded the difference in the customs duty from the petitioner. We are not inclined to go into the controvesy whether the petitioner filed the replies to the show‑cause notices and appeared on the date of hearing fixed by respondent No.4 as these facts are disputed. It is however, quite clear from the letters dated 28‑1‑1982 written by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, determining the valuation of the consignment and demanding difference of custom duty, that no reference was made to any material on the basis of which the valuation under section 25 of the Customs Act was determined by respondent No.4. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to point out any material on record or produce before us, on the basis of which the valuation under section 25 of the Customs Act was made by respondent No.4. It is the duty of customs department in such circumstances while determining the value of the goods under section 25 of the Customs Act to disclose the evidence on the basis of which the valuation disclosed by the importer is rejected and fresh determination of value under section 25 of the Act is made. The importer in such cases is also entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal in support of the valuation declared by him in the Bill of Entry. We, accordingly, accept the petition and declare the valuation made under section 25 of Act as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We further direct respondent No.4 to re‑determine the valuation of the consignments under section 25 of the Customs Act after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and showing him the evidence which the department proposes to use against him, and, if necessary, the petitioner may be allowed to lead evidence in) rebuttal. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./S‑480/K Case remanded.