2006 PLP 635 (PTD)
Messrs NAVEED BROTHERS through Manager, Karachi Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CUSTOMS VALUATION AND POST CLEARANCE AUDIT, KARACHI and another
| Citation | 2006 PLP 635 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Amir Hani Muslim, J |
| Parties | Messrs NAVEED BROTHERS through Manager, Karachi Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CUSTOMS VALUATION AND POST CLEARANCE AUDIT, KARACHI and another |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 635 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 635 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Amir Hani Muslim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 635 (PTD) (Messrs NAVEED BROTHERS through Manager, Karachi Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CUSTOMS VALUATION AND POST CLEARANCE AUDIT, KARACHI and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Afzal Awan for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.25(1)(5)
Provisional assessment at the rate calculated under S.25(5) of Customs Act, 1969
Assessment on basis of identical goods could be made only, when assessment on basis of declared value was not possible
Invoices submitted by importer were neither incorrect nor any other reason existed for deviating from normal basis of assessment
High Court accepted constitutional petition, set aside impugned order and remanded case to the authority for its decision afresh.
Judgment & Decree
Since the controversy is short and both learned counsel appeared to be prepared, we decided to admit the petition and take it up for final hearing. The petitioner had imported Embroidery Thread from China and declared its transaction value to the US $ 4.95 per K.G. However, the respondent around that time appeared to consider transaction value of similar goods at $ 7.50 per K.G. The resolution of dispute at the time when the goods were lying on the Port was avoided upon the petitioner's paying at the rate of the declared value and furnishing guarantee for the additional amount claimed by the respondent. A provisional assessment was made at Rs.496,768 out of which Rs.324,248 were paid and the remainder were secured by guarantees. The aforesaid provisional assessment became final upon expiry of the statutory period.
2. Mr. M. Afzal Awan learned counsel for the petitioner in the first place urged that provisional assessment had been made only on declared value which assumed finality and duty in terms of the assessment under section 25(5) could not be claimed. We think this contention is based on misconception, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent. The goods declaration Form itself shows that an amount in addition to the one already paid was found to be payable though payment was deferred. We are therefore, of the view that provisional assessment was in fact made at the rate calculated under section 25(5) of the Customs Act which assumed finality.
3. Nevertheless, there is substance in the petitioner's second submission that no reasons appeared to be available for deviating from the normal process under section 25(1) of the Customs Act and resorted to section 25(5). Indeed the later provision provides that assessment on the basis of value of identical goods can only be made when it is not possible to make an assessment on the basis of declared value under section 25(1). Indeed there appears nothing to show that the invoices submitted by the petitioner were incorrect or any other reason for deviating from the normal basis of assessment existed. We would accordingly set aside the impugned valuation ruling dated 31-10-2005 and remand the matter to the valuation authority who will, after hearing the parties make the assessment under section 25(1) or only when it is not possible to do so resort to section 25(5) of the Customs Act within three months from today. The parties thereafter may seek adjudication of their grievance in the hierarchy of Tribunals under the Customs Act. S.A.K./N-2/K Case remanded.