2022 PLP 1836 (PTD)

MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.

Having required similarity these two references are disposed off by this single order. These two Special Customs Reference Applications under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 have been filed by the Collector of Customs in respect of the same order whereby the appeals of the respondents were accepted by learned Customs Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Karachi and as such the valuation of the Customs authorities made in the matter was set aside.

2. The relevant background of the matters is that in S.C.R.A No.174/2016 the respondent had imported (i) RP Relay, (ii) Pipe Cutter, (iii) Flaring Tools Sets Material, (iv) Tube Cutter, (v) Fan Brackets, (vi) Copper Fan Motors from China, whereas, in S.C.R.A No. 175/2016 the respondent had imported Roll Bond Evaporator Sheets of assorted sizes from China. The respondents filed G.D under section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 bearing Nos. KPPI-HC-48396 and KPPI-HC-48384 both dated 03.05.2014 respectively with different valuation for home consumption. However, the Customs authorities selected the same for scrutiny under section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969. The respondents made a request for provisional release under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 by securing differential amount and obtained the release, whereafter the Director General of Customs Valugion vide Valuation Advice C. No. I/25/2014- VII/795 dated 10.11.2014 determined the value under Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969, whereafter the respondents filed appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Karachi who by Order-in-Appeal bearing Nos. 9985 and 9986 of 2015 dated 25.03.2015 rejected the same. The respondents finally approached the Customs Appellate Tribunal wherein the subject order was passed on 30.11.2015 and appeals were allowed on the ground that the Customs authorities had failed to observe the sequential method of valuation as provided under section 25(1) to (8) of the Customs Act, 1969 having valued the same under section 25(9) of the said Act, leaving all the earlier provisions redundant, as such the value assessed by them was not available. It is also observed in the said order that the valuation as was eventually made was time barred as provided under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. Following questions have been proposed;

1. Whether an appeal is provided under the law against the determination of value done by the Director General of Valuation and whether the learned Collector (Appeals) rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent as not maintainable?

2. Whether the Honorable Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that all objections regarding the valuation done by the Director General Valuation can only be taken in a Review Application filed under Section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969?

3. Whether it is mandatory for the officer of Customs to pass final assessment order under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969?

4. Whether the order passed by the Honorable Appellate Tribunal is a result of non-reading/misreading of letter C.No. 1/25/2014-III/795 dated 10.11.2014 / Valuation Advice issued by DG Valuation?

5. Whether the order passed by the Honorable Appellate Tribunal is correct and in accordance with law?

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the valuation having been made by the relevant Customs Directorate, the same was liable to be considered and as such the proposed questions have been made out.

4. Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. We have specifically called upon learned counsel to disturb the position as determined by the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal as to the following the sequential method as provided under section 25(1) to (8) of the Customs Act, 1969, to which learned counsel stated that valuation otherwise was not available, same was assessed under section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969. For convenience of reference, Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 is quoted as follows; "(9) FALL BACK METHOD.- If the customs values of the imported goods cannot be determined under subsections (1), (5), (6), (7) and (8), it shall, subject to the rules, be determined on the basis of a value derived from among the methods of valuation set out in subsections (1), (5), (6), (7) and (8) that, when applied in a flexible manner to the extent necessary to arrive at a customs value." (Underlining for emphasis only)

5. It is observed that learned Customs Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeals in the matter on the basis of not only the valuation of the Customs authorities as determined in the matter violating the sequential method as provided under sections 25(1) as eventually obtained was also in violation of the mandatory period of time required for such exercise after the provisional release. In our understanding, the only question that arises in the matter from the subject order is "Whether the value of imported goods can be determined by the Customs authorities directly under Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 by passing the preceding provisions from (1) to (8)?" The answer to the above question in view of the relied upon authorities of the Customs Appellate Tribunal and repeatedly held by Courts is obviously 'No' and so was the case in the present matter.

6. In the present circumstances, where the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal based upon the record had determined in the subject order that the valuation having been made directly under section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 is not available and same was time barred are not open to disturbance, these reference applications fail and are accordingly dismissed in limine. A copy of this order be sent under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Karachi in terms of Section 196(5) of the Customs Act, 1969. MH/C-15/Sindh Reference dismissed.