Assessment of imported goods

2019 PTD 1129 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80, 193, 193A & 180Customs Rules, 2001, R. 438Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13SRO No. 486(I)/2007 dated 9.6.2007Assessment of imported goodsAppeal to Collector (Appeals)Procedure in appealShow-cause noticeDouble jeopardyScope

Assessment order passed by competent authority, cannot be disturbed by any authority by preparing contravention report and overlapping the existing assessment order for initiation of adjudication proceedings

Only course available before Customs authorities is to challenge the assessment order before Collector of Customs (Appeals)

Customs authorities are entitled to incorporate all apprehensions, misreading of facts and contravention of provisions in appeal

Collector of Customs (Appeals), if considers that duty and taxes have been either not levied or short paid on the basis of goods found subsequent to clearance, is empowered to issue showcause notice

In the presence of an appealable order, fresh order cannot be passed even in the shape of reassessment order or through issuance of show-cause notice

Passing of assessment order in such a way falls within the ambit of "double jeopardy" not permitted under Art. 13 of the Constitution.

2012 PTD 1650 Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25, 26, 32 & 36Assessment of imported goodsDescription of goods

Issue for consideration was, whether the examination reports tendered by the Customs Authorities, supported the description of goods as given in the commercial documents presented by the importer before the Customs Authorities

Commercial documents, viz, commercial invoice, packing list, letter of credit, bill of lading, presented by the importer before the Customs Authorities, contained the same description of the imported goods as determined by the Customs Authorities in the examination report submitted by them or the back of the goods declaration

Same aspect was further substantiated by the Comparative Chart submitted by the Collectorate to the Tribunal

Only difference between both i.e. the invoice submitted to the Customs Authorities by the importer and the examination report tendered by the Customs staff, pertained to the number of units

Total quantity declared in the invoice presented before customs was 25,00 whereas the examination report had shown the quantity as 2525

Examination report tendered by the Customs Authorities, constituted in itself an independent piece of evidence which negated the departmental stance, and on the contrary fortified the view point of the importer

Issue in question was answered in the affirmative.

2007 PTD 2623 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 25Assessment of imported goodsAssessing Officer, authority ofScope

Officer of customs department is authorized under S.25 of Customs Act, 1969, to reject declared value of consignment imported in Pakistan and to asses the same.

2007 PTD 2623 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.16, 25 & 31(1)(2)Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)Assessment of imported goodsDeclared value, rejection of

Collector of Customs, on allegation of misdeclaration, ordered confiscation of goods allowing importer to redeem the same on payment of 50% fine equal to amount of duty and taxes

Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal. filed by importer and set aside the order passed by Collector Customs, which order was maintained by High Court

Validity

Nothing was available on record to indicate that Customs Department had secured or had attempted to secure invoices from other importers who had imported identical or similar consignment in Pakistan with a view to show that price declared by such other importers greatly varied from price declared by importer

In absence of such an exercise, action in rejecting declared value of consignment would amount to an arbitrary and capricious exercise

Resort to S.25(7) of Customs Act, 1969, was to be made only when Customs Officer, who had to make assessment or determination of fair or normal value of consignment, was of the view that the same could not be determined in view of impossibility of procuring evidence

Order of Collector Customs was silent in such regard which was an important factor for drawing an inference that no such attempt was made before passing. the. order

Customs officer dealing with the case proceeded in a perfunctory, whimsical and arbitrary manner and Customs, Excise Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the same

High Court also did not commit any illegality or infirmity in accepting order of the Tribunal and dismissing Constitutional petition filed by authorities

Supreme Court declined to interfere with judgment passed by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.