2005 PLP 253 (PTD)
Messrs KALOODI INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI and 3 others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 253 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs KALOODI INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 253 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 253 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 253 (PTD) (Messrs KALOODI INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI Versus CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Petitioner.
- Faisal Arab, Standing Counsel and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th October, 2004.
- 4. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq alternatively argued that valuation under section 25-B would operate only if the rate determined were published in the official Gazette and there was no proof of such public publication. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has however, produced before us a copy of Gazette, dated 1st November, 1992, containing S.R.O. 227(KE)/92, wherein the impugned value has been fixed and is required to take effect from 1st. November, 1992. Admittedly the bills of entry were filed on 26th November, 1992, and therefore, the notification was clearly applicable to the imported goods.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.25-B & 25
Determination of value not covered by S.25, Customs Act, 1969
Valuation, in the present case, was determined not under S.25, Customs Act, 1969 but under S.25-B of the Act which at the relevant time enabled the Department or an officer authorized by it to fix the value at such rate as he deemed fit notwithstanding anything contained in S.25 of the Act
In view of the stipulation that S.25-B, Customs Act, 1969 was required to operate notwithstanding anything contained in S.25, strict proof of nexus with the transaction value under S.25 was not necessary
Discretion under S.25-B of the Act indeed was required to be exercised reasonably and there was no allegation that the fixation of value was effected in a perverse or mala fide manner.
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.
The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the levy of customs duty at the rate of U.S. Dollar 1425 per metric ton in respect of an assignment of 350 metric tons of Zinc Ingots imported from USSR. According to the petitioner, customs duty ought to have been charged at the rate of U.S. Dollar 1189 per metric ton in terms of the invoice value of the goods.
2. The respondents on the other hand have contended that the goods were chargeable of customs duty in terms of the F&F value determined under section 25-B of the Customs Act at the rate of U.S. Dollar 1425 per metric ton.
3. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance, attempted to urge that the valuation effected by the respondents had no nexus with transaction value of the imported goods in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act. In this context, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, seem to be correct in asserting that the valuation was determined not under section 25 but under section 25-B of the Customs Act which at the relevant time enabled the respondent No. 3 or an officer authorized by it to fix the value at such rate as he deem to be fit notwithstanding anything contained in section
25. In view of the stipulation that section 25-B was required to operate notwithstanding anything contained in section 25 we are afraid that strict proof of nexus with the transaction value under section 25 was not necessary. Indeed the discretion under section 25-B was required to be exercised reasonably but there is no allegation that the fixation of value was effected in a perverse or mala fide manner.
4. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq alternatively argued that valuation under section 25-B would operate only if the rate determined were published in the official Gazette and there was no proof of such public publication. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has however, produced before us a copy of Gazette, dated 1st November, 1992, containing S.R.O. 227(KE)/92, wherein the impugned value has been fixed and is required to take effect from 1st. November, 1992. Admittedly the bills of entry were filed on 26th November, 1992, and therefore, the notification was clearly applicable to the imported goods.
5. In view of the above we find no substance in this petition and are constrained to dismiss the same. M.B.A./K-33/K Petition dismissed.