2008 PLP 1760 (PTD)

MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.

Being aggrieved with the assessment of value without any evidence by the Customs Authorities in contravention of the provision of Customs Act, which requires assessment of goods in accordance to transaction value in terms of section 25(1) of Customs Act, this petition has been preferred. Case of the petitioner is that vide invoice, dated 7-10-2004 consignment of textile fabrics was imported by him. After its arrival at Karachi it was presented for assessment for value vide bill of lading, dated 4-10-2004. On examination, the consignment was found exactly in accordance with the declaration made by petitioner in all respects, that is quantity, quality and weight, but in spite of that Customs Authorities had not accepted transaction value and the evidence furnished by the petitioner and arbitrarily enhanced the value without any basis. Detail of enhancement of value of consignment, item to item has been given in paras. 2 of the petition. Value of the subject consignment was US$ 8,185.82 which was enhanced to US$32,588.69 without any basis and identical evidence. In spite of repeated requests Customs Department had not reviewed its assessment, hence finding no way petitioner under protest had paid customs duties and got released the consignment. According to petitioner he time and again appeared before respondents Nos.1 and 3 and requested for re-assessment of the goods but they refused to entertain the request of petitioner, hence this petition. It is contended by learned counsel that section 25 of the Customs Act provides the methods of assessment of value of imported goods and as per clause (1) of section 25 the customs value of imported goods shall be the transaction value. To give the effect of section 25 of more forceful Customs Rules, 2001 vide Order S.R.O. No.450(I) of 2001, dated 18th June, 2001 were framed and as per clause (1) of rule 113 primary methods of valuation has been prescribed therein, which says that the price actually paid or payable is the total payment made or to be made by the buyer to or for the benefit of the seller for the imported goods, therefore, enhancement of value without any satisfactory evidence, of any import of identical goods of the very period when the subject consignment was imported, is not in accordance with section 25 of the Customs Act, which speaks about the assessment on the basis of transaction value. Whereas respondents' case is that after assessment of goods and clearance of the same the valuation of under reference goods which were already cleared cannot be re-determined as it is a past and closed transaction. According to the respondents, the petitioner has declared actual description, quality, width the grammage of the fabric and used general term for description as "textile fabric" to avoid valuation and exact amount of taxes. However, on physical examination of the goods actual description were brought in the knowledge of the respondents and that is why assessment was made under section 25(7) of the Customs Act with enhancement of value. At the same time it is admitted by them in very para. 2 of parawise comments that the goods were examined under first examination system therefore, any charge of misdeclaration as pleaded cannot be alleged. During the course of arguments learned counsel has referred a judgment pronounced in C.P. No.D-1226 of 2004 wherein almost identical issue was raised and it was observed that: "For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and it is declared that the action of respondents resorting to the assessment on the basis of valuation advice in pursuance of provisions contained in subsection (7) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 without resort to subsections (1) to (6) is illegal, without lawful authority and not sustainable in law". Hence, we too, in consonance to the observations referred above, allowed this petition and direct the respondents to accept the transaction value declared by the petitioner in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act and if after assessment any excess amount of duty and taxes were recovered from the petitioner in violation of the mandatory requirement of law, respondents are directed to return the same within a month from the date of this order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./W-9/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.