Imported Goods

2025 PTD 765 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25 & 25AGoods declarationImported goodsDetermination of valueMethodologyRe-assessment, making ofScope

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('the Tribunal') set-aside the orders passed by the forums below against the importer (respondent)

Submission of the Applicant / Collectorate was that the Tribunal had ignored the information gathered from (purported) official website (www.icegate.gov.in) which provided the actual transactional value of the goods-in-question

Validity

Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act, 1969') confers a power to determine the customs value and starts with a non-obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding the provisions contained in S. 25 of the Act, 1969, the Collector of Customs on his own motion, or the Director of Customs Valuation [on his own motion or] on a reference made to him by any person [or an officer of Customs], may determine the customs value of any goods or category of goods imported into or exported out of Pakistan, after following the methods laid down in S. 25 of the Act, 1969, whichever is applicable

It is clear that the provision of S. 25A of the Act, 1969 would have an overriding effect while applying the values determined under it and it is only the methods of S. 25 of the Act, 1969 which are to be followed; but in no manner any assessment can be made under S.25 of the Act, 1969 when there is a Valuation Ruling under S. 25A of the Act, 1969 already in field

It is not understandable as to how the Applicant / Collectorate through a Show-Cause Notice had made an attempt to reassess the goods under S. 25 of the Act, 1969 by showing intention to accept transactional value of the goods in-question

Notwithstanding this, even the proviso in S. 25-A of the Act, 1969, whereby it is provided that where the value declared in a goods declaration or mentioned in the invoice retrieved from the consignment is higher than the value determined under subsection (1) of S.25-A of the Act, 1969, such higher value shall be the customs value as inserted by way of Finance Act, 2017, whereas, the present case was prior in time

Moreover, it was not a case where the transactional value was available with the department or the value mentioned in the invoice was retrieved from the consignment at the time of making any assessment under S. 25 of the Act, 1969

In the present case , the goods were already released pursuant to a statutory Valuation Ruling and therefore, any information gathered from the website pursuant to which an attempt had been made to make assessment by accepting the transactional value under S. 25 of the Act, 1969 could not be sustained

Admittedly, the Valuation Ruling-in-question was never amended pursuant to such information from the website

Notably, in the Show-Cause Notice there again were vague allegations, whereas, neither the values so made available from the website had been mentioned; nor respondents had been confronted with any such unit value independently, and in a generalized manner, the Show-Cause Notice had been issued

No reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal was made out

Thus, the proposed question was answered in negative i.e. against the Applicant / Department and in favour of the Respondents / importers

Reference Applications were dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

2023 SCMR 2052 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80, 81 & 32Imported goodsProvisional determination of liabilityScope

Initiation of proceedings under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 ('Act of 1969'), after the provisional assessment under section 81 of the Act of 1969 has attained finality

Finality of assessment, whether under section 80 or section 81, as the case may be, does not preclude invocation of the offence under section 32, nor proceedings for recovery of duty, taxes or charge that has not been levied, short levied or erroneously refunded within the prescribed time from the relevant date

Finality of assessment under section 80 or section 81, as the case may be, is distinct from the offence described under section 32 and does not bar the proceedings thereunder, provided they are within the limitation period explicitly specified in the case of each eventuality separately.

2023 PTD 1797 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80, 81 & 32Imported goodsProvisional determination of liabilityScope

Initiation of proceedings under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 ('Act of 1969'), after the provisional assessment under section 81 of the Act of 1969 has attained finality

Finality of assessment, whether under section 80 or section 81, as the case may be, does not preclude invocation of the offence under section 32, nor proceedings for recovery of duty, taxes or charge that has not been levied, short levied or erroneously refunded within the prescribed time from the relevant date

Finality of assessment under section 80 or section 81, as the case may be, is distinct from the offence described under section 32 and does not bar the proceedings thereunder, provided they are within the limitation period explicitly specified in the case of each eventuality separately.

2023 PTD 1514 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 81Imported goodsProvisional determination of liabilityScope

Subsection (4) to section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 provides that if the final assessment is not completed within the period specified given under subsection (2) to section 81 then provisional assessment shall become final.

2014 PTD 176 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25(9) & 25-ACustoms Rules, 2001, Rr. 110 & 121Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionImported goodsIssuance of Valuation Ruling by authority on basis of market survey of prices of such goods

Department's objection that such petition was not maintainable as petitioner had not availed alternate statutory remedies

Validity

Questions raised in such petition were of general importance and determination thereof would necessarily be an extension of analysis and discussion in earlier judgment of High Court, which was itself of general application

Conclusions and observations to be made by High Court in such petition would apply to all manner of imports and valuation rulings issued or to be issued in future

High Court repelled such objection in circumstances.

2014 PTD 176 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25(9) & 25-A [as inserted by Finance Act (III of 2006) and substituted by Finance Act (IV of 2007)]Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.110 & 121Imported goodsValuation Ruling, application of

Procedure/ Method stated.

2010 SCMR 164 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 196Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)Imported goodsDescriptionScope

Grievance of importer was that goods imported fell within PTC Heading 8419.5090 chargeable to customs duty at 10% but authorities applied PTC Heading 8419.5010 and charged customs duty at the rate of 35%

Validity

Goods imported were shaped like "Shell" as well as "Tube", therefore, it did not appeal ,to a prudent mind to take the same out from description "Shell or Tube type" and put under description "other" not akin to relevant description

Adjudicating officer had correctly classified imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.5010, so also the Customs Appellate Tribunal

High Court rightly dismissed appeal and reference of importer

Concurrent findings recorded by courts below were unexceptionable-Leave to appeal was refused.

2010 PTD 313 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 196Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)Imported goodsDescriptionScope

Grievance of importer was that goods imported fell within PTC Heading 8419-5090 chargeable to customs duty at 10% but authorities applied PTC Heading 8419-5010 and charged customs duty at the rate of 35%

Validity

Goods imported were shaped like "Shell" as well as "Tube", therefore, it did not appeal to a prudent mind to like the same out from description "Shell or Tube type" and put under description "other" not akin to relevant description

Adjudicating officer had correctly classified imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.54010, so also the Customs Appellate Tribunal

High Court rightly dismissed appeal and reference of importer

Concurrent findings recorded by courts below were unexceptionable

Leave to appeal was refused.

2005 PTD 194 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 30(c)Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199­Imported goods

Collection of income tax by Collector of Customs after making assessment on basis of Bill of Entry including customs duty and sales tax

High Court excluded customs duty and sales tax while assessing income of importer for income-tax purposes

Petition for leave to appeal by Collector of Customs against impugned order

Maintainability

Income Tax Department though party in the Constitutional petition before High Court, had not filed petition for leave to appeal

Collector of Customs, though party in Constitutional petition, had neither contested matter nor appeared nor filed any comments before High Court

Customs Authorities were merely collectors of ,fax on behalf of Income Tax Department

Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.