2002 PLP 2828 (YLR)

Jawahar A. Naqveen on behalf of K. M. Virk, Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2001. MANSOOR AHMAD, J.‑‑‑The case of the appellant is that he imported a consignment of Self Adhesive Tape and Adhesive Paper Rolls against Letter of Credit No.0179‑01‑50‑14‑0102 dated 13‑1‑1998, weighing 7190 Kg. at unit value of USD 434 per metric ton from Thailand. The consignment was claimed to be Self Adhesive Ordinary Tape falling under H.S. Code No.3919.9000. The consignment was destine to Lahore Airport via Karachi. On arrival of consignment at Lahore Airport, the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 1092 dated 13‑4‑1998 declaring therein the description of goods as Self Adhesive Ordinary Tape having quantity 3787.40 Kg. gross weighing 7190.75 Kg. falling under H.S. Code No.3919.9000 at unit value of 434 USD per metric ton. Though the consignment was found in accordance with the declaration made by the appellant but while assessing the value the, price of Self Adhesive Ordinary Tape was enhanced from USD 434 per metric ton to 1500 USD per metric ton. The order in original in this behalf was issued on 30‑9‑1998.

2. The appellant filed an appeal before the Collector of Appeals against the order in original. Alongwith appeal an application for provisional release of goods was made. The application was allowed and the goods were released on furnishing bank guarantee covering the differential amount of duties and taxes subject to decision of appeal. The appeal was finally' decided by the Collector of Appeals vide its judgment dated 29‑12‑1998 and vide his order he appraised the value of the consignment at USD 570 per metric ton for the purpose of levying customs duties and other taxes leviable thereon.

3. The Collector of Customs (Appraisement) Customs House, Lahore filed an appeal against the judgment dated 29‑12‑1998 passed by the Collector of Appeals before the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 13‑12‑1999 accepted the appeal and in that set aside the order of the Collector of Appeals and restored the order in original. Aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal the appellant filed the present appeal and in that urged the questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. The pivotal and main question, inter alia raised as questions of law relate to interpretation and application of section 25 of Customs Act, 1969. Other questions of discrimination and misreading/non‑reading of record were also raised.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Assistant Collector of Customs Dryport. Lahore passed an order in original and ascertained the value of imported goods at, USD 1500 per metric ton. The basis for this determination was a report of Appraising Intelligence Branch, Lahore which report was compiled by the branch on taking into consideration various aspects like manufacturing cost, prevailing prices of constituent material and addition of manufacturing charges, etc. The value computed by the branch at USD 1500 per metric ton was taken by the Assistant Collector as normal value passing the order in original.

5. Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred as Act) lays flown the principle of determining the value of imported goods. Section 25 refers to "normal price" which is defined as the price, the goods would fetch on sale in open market. The expression "open market" was interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Messrs Lateef Brothers v. Deputy Collector Customs (1992 SCMR 1083). It was held that "open market" refers to the market in the country of origin and not at the place of importation. Therefore the criteria for determination of value of goods should have been the prevailing commercial price in' Taiwan. In other cases the same view was taken by the Sindh High Court as well as this Court in cases titled Messrs Kausar Trading Co. v. Government of Pakistan (1986 CLC 612), Farooq International v. Chief Controller of Import and Export (1985 CLC 1781) and Muhammad Khurshid Bhatti v. Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore (PLD 1971 Lahore 971). We do not find any reason and distinguishing feature to depart from the view already expressed by the apex Court.

6. Admittedly in determining the value of imported goods this criteria was not followed by the Assistant Collector of Customs while passing the order in original therefore, we are unable to find any support in favour of the order of Assistant Collector and hold that determination of value was wholly arbitrary and not supported by law. The order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) however, was based on parallel cases and is within the parameter of section 25 of the Act. The learned Tribunal did not examine the case from this angle and did not furnish any plausible reasons to set aside the order of Collector (Appeals).

7. This appeal is therefore, accepted and the judgment dated 13‑12‑1999 of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore is set aside and judgment dated 30‑9‑1998 passed by the Collector (Appeals) is restored. No order as to costs. S.A.K./A‑384/L Order accordingly.