Appellate and revisional jurisdiction

2019 PTD 301 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25-A, 25-D & 194Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015), PreambleReferenceCustoms value, determination ofAppellate and revisional jurisdictionDistinction

Dispute was with regards to determination of value of goods in question among Customs Authorities, importers and local manufacturers

All the parties invoked jurisdiction of High Court against order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Validity

Local manufacturers had no standing to ask for determination and/or enhancement of customs value of any goods under S. 25-A or S. 25-D of Customs Act, 1969; Said manufacturers for such purpose could not file an application or petition under either sections of the Customs Act, 1969 or intervene or be allowed to ask to participate in any pending proceedings or be made a party thereto whether as stakeholders or otherwise

Interest of local manufacturers was to have value set at as high a level as possible on ground that transaction value or value set in valuation ruling was otherwise too low and was causing them injury

Such matter was exclusively in domain of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015

Neither Director Valuation nor Collector of Customs or Director-General had any jurisdiction in such regard

Local manufacturers could not be allowed to circumvent and evade requirements of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 by asking for a customs value under S. 25-A of Customs Act, 1969 or any enhancement therein

Provision of S. 25-D of Customs Act, 1969 could only apply if customs value was determined under S. 25-A of Customs Act, 1969 by Collector of Customs or by Director Valuation

No direct or original power was conferred under S. 25-D of Customs Act, 1969 on Director-General to himself determine customs value for goods for which no valuation ruling was issued

Under S. 25-A(3) of Customs Act, 1969 jurisdiction of Director-General was only to determine customs value if there was a conflict in value determined under S. 25-A(1) of Customs Act, 1969

Director-General had no power to determine customs value for any goods in addition to or other than those for which a valuation ruling had been issued under S. 25-A of Customs Act, 1969

Director-General, under S. 25-D of Customs Act, 1969 was to allow lower of two values to stand and set aside the other

Customs value was to be determined for a specific purpose, i.e., levy of customs duty and other taxes as same was part of charging scheme

If two conclusions were reasonably possible as regards a charging provision, of a fiscal statute, then one more favourable to taxpayer was to be applied, i.e., adopting lower of two values

High Court dismissed applications filed by local manufacturers and authorities whereas, those of importers were allowed

Reference was allowed accordingly.

2016 YLRN 32 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 100 & 115Appellate and revisional jurisdictionScope

Findings recorded by the courts below on the basis of evidence could not be interfered with by the second appellate court or revisional court simply because on the same evidence different conclusion could be drawn.