2010 PLP 1293 (PTD)
Messrs P.M. INTERNATIONAL through Special Attorney Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division (F.B.R.) and 3 others
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1293 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs P.M. INTERNATIONAL through Special Attorney Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division (F.B.R.) and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1293 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1293 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1293 (PTD) (Messrs P.M. INTERNATIONAL through Special Attorney Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division (F.B.R.) and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zain A. Jatoi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 25-A, 25-D, 80 & 193
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Declaration filed under S.79 of Customs Act, 1969 showing assessment of imported goods by importer himself
Non-acceptance of importer's assessment and re-assessment of goods by Customs Officer
Filing of review by importer against re-assessment order of Customs Officer
Dismissal of review by Director-General of Valuation
Constitutional petition by importer challenging both such orders
Order of dismissal of review for being ancillary and incidental to re-assessment had merged in order of re-assessment passed by Customs Officer
Importer had a remedy of appeal against re-assessment order
High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
1. Granted.
2. By this application the petitioner counsel has sought review of the order dated 20-1-2010 passed by us in which, it was noted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the assessment order and it may avail such remedy in accordance with law. Learned counsel has contended that in terms of subsection (2) of section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 the custom value has to be determined and assessed on the basis of valuation ruling given under subsection (1) of section 25A and against valuation ruling the applicant has applied for the review under section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 which was dismissed. He states that the applicant has no remedy against the order of dismissal of review. He, however, admitted that the applicant's imported goods have been assessed in term of section 80 of the Act. Upon hearing and perusal of the law, it appears that the provisions of section 25A onwards provides for manner of determination of valuation and if a party is aggrieved by a valuation ruling, a review under section 25D is provided to the Director General of Valuation. It is admitted by the learned Counsel that on import of the consignment, goods declaration was filed by the petitioner under section 79 of the Customs Act in which the petitioner itself made the assessment of goods imported by it which assessment was not accepted by the Customs officer who on the basis of valuation ruling reassessed the imported consignment. The order of re-assessment is conceded to be that of under section 80 of the Act and in terms of section 193 of the Act, an appeal is provided to the Collector of Customs (Appeal) against such re-assessment order. The order of dismissal of review application by the Director General of Valuation seems to be ancillary and incidental to the very reassessment and perhaps will merge in the order of re-assessment itself, which will be open to appeal. In view of the foregoing legal position, we find no apparent mistake or any flaw floating on the face of the order dated 29-1-2010 as the same speaks of the legal position as is mentioned above. We, therefore, find no justification to review such order and therefore, dismiss the application. S. A.K. /P-8/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.