Assessment of duty

2019 PTD 187 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 80Assessment of dutyChecking of goods declaration by customsReassessmentPost clearanceScope

Reassessment under S. 80(3), Customs Act, 1969 after release of goods is permitted only after documents have been called for as expressed in subsection (2) of S. 80 and upon receipt of documents or the information so transmitted/ submitted or the statement given by the importer to the Customs Authorities found to be incorrect in respect of earlier assessment.

2018 PTD 2282 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80, 83, 179, 193 & 195SRO No.565(I)/2006, dated 5-6-2006Assessment of dutyRe-opening of past and closed assessments

Goods in question were assessed under mandate of S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969 and were cleared under S.83 of the Act and different orders were passed at the relevant time

All said assessment orders attained finality; which were neither re-opened by the Collectorate of Customs, nor were challenged by the authorities before the appropriate forum of law

Collectorate of customs, had attempted re-opening of said past and closed assessment orders with mala fides and misusing the jurisdiction under S.179 of the Customs Act, 1969

Assessment orders passed by Collectorate at the relevant period of clearance had attained finality, and imported goods had been consumed by the importer in manufacturing process

Importer contended that proceedings initiated through issuance of show-cause notice and impugned order-in-original, amounted 'double jeopardy' and attracted the principle of res judicata

Impugned order-in-original being not sustainable under the law, was set aside and case was remanded to the authorities along with the directions to re-adjudicate the matter on account of paid amount of customs duty through extra paid bill.

2018 PTD 1991 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32, 79, 80 & 195S.R.O. No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002Untrue statement, error etc.Assessment of dutyPowers of the Federal Board of Revenue or Collector of customs to pass certain orders

Federal Board of Revenue had not delegated powers to the Director of Intelligence and Investigation under the provision of Ss.32 & 79 of the Customs Act, 1969 which were incorporated in the contravention report and were invoked in the show-cause notice by Additional Collectorate of Customs; because S.32 provided about false statement, error etc. and S.79 (Declaration and Assessment of Home Consumption Warehousing) was a machinery section and defined the procedure for filing of goods declaration by the importer

For re-opening of the appealable order, powers under S.195 of the Customs Act, 1969 had been conferred either on the Collector of Customs or Federal Board of Revenue

Despite the fact that no powers under said sections were available with the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation reopened the assessment order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969

Mode and manner in which the said Directorate operated, was nothing more than creating a situation of anarchy

Detention/seizure and subsequently preparation of contravention report by the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation and issuance of show-cause notice/ passing of order-in-original by collectorate of customs and putting thereupon order-in-appeal, were without powers/jurisdiction and lawful authority, as such, null, void ab initio and coram non-judice.

2018 PTD 638 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(a), 80, 83, 193 & 195Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.438 & 442Notification S.R.O. No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002Assessment of duty

Assessment order passed under S.80, of the Customs Act, 1969 and R.438 Customs Rules, 2001 and clearance order under S.83 of the Customs Act, 1969 and R.442 of Customs Rules, 2001 by the Authorities defined in S.2(a) of the Customs Act, 1969 and Notification S.R.O. No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002, could not be disturbed by any Authority including Collecorate of Customs for preparing contravention report for adjudication proceedings

Only course available under law for Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) was to challenge the assessment order before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) under S.193 of the Customs Act, 1969

Assistant Collector of Customs was empowered to incorporate all the apprehensions, misreading of the facts and contraventions of provisions of the Act/Rules

Assistant Collectorate of Customs (Preventive), instead of following the prescribed method, reopened the assessment/clearance order under S.195 of the Customs Act, 1969

When the right had been conferred on the officer of Customs by the legislature under the provisions of S.197 of the Customs Act, 1969, provisions of S.195 of the said Act, could not be invoked.

2017 PTD 2474 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32, 80, 81(4) & 196Assessment of dutyMis-declarationReference to High CourtClassification and description of the consignment

Importer had declared the goods under PCT 7220.9090, whereas, the same had been assessed by the department under PCT 7220.9010

Difference of 5% additional value between declared and assessed value under respective PCT headings

Consignment was physically examined by the department and same was found as per the declaration

No case of misdeclaration was made out

Department had disputed the classification of goods

Provisional assessment having not been finalized by the department which reflected that in terms of subsection (4) of S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969, the provisional determination as per goods declaration, stood finalized

No case of mis-declaration having been established by the department, no justification existed for imposing any redemption fine, or penalty upon the importer when there was no evasion or even difference of duty and taxes in the case

Impugned order passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, did not suffer from any error or illegality; whereas it was based on finding of facts, which was neither perverse nor suffering from mis-reading or non-reading of the evidence, but it depicted correct legal position

Reference application, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2017 PTD 2403 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25, 79, 80, 157, 168, 193 & 194-AAssessment of dutyConfiscation of goods

Importer filed Goods Declaration for the import of "Plastic Granules Recycled" and determined his liability of payment of applicable duty and taxes, and sought clearance under S.79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969

In order to ascertain correction of the particulars and amounts of duties and taxes, Goods Declaration was selected for scrutiny in terms of S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969

Importer had provided copy of the non-hazardous certification from the supplier, but same was not accepted

Case was adjudicated and goods were outrightly confiscated

Appeal filed by the importer against the impugned order was dismissed by the appellate authority

Validity

Importability of recycled plastic granules, was essentially governed by the condition, which condition had shown that "certificate" was required from the "exporting country" in respect of the impugned goods and not for any type of waste

Such a certification had undertaken that recycled plastic granules being exported to Pakistan were "free from hazardous substances"

In the present case, certificate by the exporting firm had been furnished with respective Trade Body's authentication; that alone was found to suffice the need for ensuring that the goods imported, were free from any hazardous substance, including any waste, which had been identified and listed in the "Basel Convention"

Same Clearance Collectorate had been accepting identical certificates in the past to allow import of recycled plastic granules

Impugned order was set aside as not maintainable in circumstances.

2017 PTD 914 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(a), 80, 83, 193 & 194-ACustoms Rules, 2001, Rr.438 & 442Notification No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002Assessment of duty

Deputy Collector of Customs, (Customs Intelligence Units), in Second conducted examination report, which he termed valid and examination conducted earlier, on the basis of which assessment/ clearance orders under the provisions of Ss.80 & 83 of the Customs Act, 1969 and Rr.438 & 442 of the Customs Rules, 2001 were passed by adjudicating authority, in exercise of the power vested upon him through Notification No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002, were ignored

Rationale adopted by Deputy Collector of Customs and his subordinates during the course of conduction of second report for determining the quantity differently to the first examination report, was not understandable; as nothing was available in record validating the plea of Deputy Collector of Customs

Assessment made earlier, had to remain in field, unless not reversed by the appropriate authority defined in S.193 of the Customs Act, 1969 or the authority superior to him

Assessment order in field having not been challenged before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), within stipulated period of 30 days, had attained finality and could not be disturbed being past and closed transaction through limitation.

2017 PTD 914 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(a), 80, 83, 193, 193-A & 195Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.438 & 442S.R.O. No.371(I)/2001, dated 15-6-2001Assessment of dutyClearance for home consumptionProcedure in appealPowers of Federal Board of Revenue or Collector

After passing of assessment order under S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969 and under R.438 of Customs Rules, 2001 and clearance of goods under S.83 of Customs Act, 1969 and R.442 of Customs Rules, 2001 by adjudicating authority, in exercise of the powers vested upon him through S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2001, dated 15-6-2001; such order could not be disturbed by any authority for the purpose of preparing contravention report and adjudicating proceedings

Only course left for adjudicating authority, was to challenge the said order before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) under S.193 of the Customs Act, 1969

Collector Customs (Appeals), was empowered to incorporate in his order all the apprehensions, misreading of facts and contraventions of the provision of Act/Rules

Collector of Customs, upon receipt of the appeal and going through the facts and grounds, if would think that the contention of the Deputy Collector of Customs, Customs Intelligent Units, seemed to be correct and the duty and taxes had not been either levied or short paid on the basis of the goods already cleared, was empowered to issue show-cause notice to the importer, as expressed in second proviso to subsection (3) of S.193-A of the Customs Act, 1969

Deputy Collector of Customs, in the present case, instead of such prescribed method, reopened the assessment/clearance order under S.195 of the Customs Act, 1969

When the right of appeal had been accorded by the legislature in the provision of S.193 of the Customs Act, 1969, provision of S.195 of the Customs Act, 1969 was not operative and could not be exercised, by the authority defined therein

Act and commission of Deputy Collector of Customs, Customs Intelligence Unit, was in derogation of Ss.193 & 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 and being of no legal effect, was coram non judice.

2016 PTD 2157 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80 & 32Assessment of dutyEssentials

Perusal of S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969 indicated that during process of assessment it was duty of the Department to not only examine goods and to consider any extra information available on Goods Declaration in order to arrive at a correct assessment of duty and taxes

Assumption that quoting a wrong PCT Heading amounted to mis-declaration would not be a correct approach in view of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969, where emphasis was on the word "material particulars" which meant something "going to the root cause of basic declaration".

2016 PTD 1706 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 80Customs Rules, 2001, R.438S.R.O. 886(I)/2012, dated on 18.07.2012Assessment of dutyJurisdiction of Customs AuthorityDepartment calculated the loss of revenue by terming the imported scrap as fresh goods

Imported goods were subject to passing of assessment order under S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969 and R. 438 of Customs Rules, 2001, hence, no loss of revenue existed

Validity

When there was no revenue loss, the case stood ousted from the jurisdiction of Department and fell within the powers of Principal Appraiser of Executive Collectorate in terms of S.R.O. No. 886(I)/2012 dated 18-7-2012

Department usurped the jurisdiction of Executive Collectorate and also powers of Principal Appraiser which was not permitted under any circumstances

Superior Authority could not exercise the power of its sub-ordinates for adjudication purpose

Exercise of jurisdiction by Department was mandatory requirement and its non-fulfillment would entail entire proceedings to be coram non-judice.

2016 PTD 107 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80, 83 & 198Assessment of duty

Clearing agent only provide service to importer on nominal charges and assistance to department in conducting examination under S. 198 of Customs Act, 1969 and on basis of which department passes assessment/clearance order under Ss. 80 & 83 of Customs Act, 1969

Department was to assess goods for levy of duty and taxes under S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969 which include correctness of particular imports including declaration

Importability of goods fell within ambit of "declaration/ assessment" and clearing agent was not an entity under S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969.

2013 PTD 24 Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Judicial Precedent

Ss. 79, 80, 81, 179, 193 & 194-AAssessment of dutyAppeal before Collector (Appeals), maintainability of

Importer, imported a consignment of Mineral Fibre Ceiling, and at the time of the assessment of the goods declaration, it was observed that declared value of goods was on lower side

Goods declaration was assessed provisionally under S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969, after securing the differential amount of duty and taxes in the shape of post dated cheques and the matter was referred to the Directorate of Customs for final determination of fair customs value

Directorate of Customs Valuation, determined the final customs

Importer being aggrieved by said final determination order passed under S.81 of Customs Act, 1969 filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who accepted the same and department being aggrieved from said order, had filed appeal before Customs Appellate Tribunal

Contention of counsel for the department was that the final determination order passed under S.81 of the Customs Act,1969 was not appealable under S.193 of the Customs Act, 1969 before Collector (Appeals)

Under provisions of S.193 of the Customs Act, 1969, the remedy of appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was available to any person, other than an officer of customs aggrieved by any decision or order passed under Ss.79, 80, 179 of Customs Act, 1969

Contention of the counsel for the department that decision made under S.81 of Customs Act, 1969 was not appealable before the Collector (Appeals), was without force

Appeal filed by the department was dismissed, in circumstances.