KARACHI: The Director General of the Directorate General Customs Valuation, Samaira Nazir Khan, has rejected a review petition through Order in Revision filed by Pak Foods, Karachi against Valuation Ruling No 700/2014 dated 18.11.2014 through its counsel Ziaul Hasan Advocate regarding valuation of halal chicken meat (frozen).
The revision petition was filed under section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 against Customs value determined vide Valuation Ruling No. 700/2014 dated 18-11-2014 on the following grounds as reproduced below;
That the determination of halal chicken meat (frozen) by the Director of Customs Valuation under Section 25D read with Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 is unjust, void ab initio and contrary to the provisions of law.
While determining the value of goods in question, the Director of Customs Valuation failed to consider the contents of our letter. The contents of said letter may be considered as part and parcel of our Review application. A uniform price of goods in question for different varieties from worldwide sources is highly unjustified.
That the respondents were required to determine the value of the subject consignment strictly in accordance with the methods laid down in Section-25 of the Customs Act, 1969. In case of any valuation dispute between the Customs authorities and the importer, Section-25 of the Customs Act, 1969 provides the basis to determine Customs value of the goods by applying the following methods in sequential order.
Transaction value of identical goods, Transactional value of similar goods, Deducted method, Computed value method and Fall back method.
Thus, the Director Customs Valuation had not undertaken any exercise for determination of transactional value in accordance with the above-mentioned methods in sequential order which is against the mandatory provision of Section-25 of the customs Act, 1969 as well as the WTO agreements.
The petitioner prayed that the Valuation Ruling (VR) No. 700/2014 issued on 18-11-2014 of imported halal chicken meat (frozen) issued under section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 after conducting market inquiry. However, the prices were on higher side as compared to the current prices which are on lower side. In presence of valid Valuation Ruling issued by the competent authority for uniform applicable, there exist no justification to accept the transaction value for assessment.
In view of the above fact& legal position the review is not maintainable and is prayed to be dismissed, the prayer added further.
The Director General of the Directorate General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir Khan in her order stated that in consideration of the advocates request matter was adjourned and re-fixed for hearing on 10-03-2015. The learned advocate again appeared on the said date and submitted copy of quotation/ price offers on internet sources. He reiterated the arguments given in the memo of appeal and stated that import from Chinese origin
are subject to duty and taxes and higher value fixed through Valuation Ruling No. 700/2014. Dated 18-1-2014 will render them out of market and business.
The DG Customs Valuation said that she had examined the petitioners argument and have also gone through the facts of the case on record. It has been observed that the issuance of cited ruling was based upon the complaint of under invoicing. As a consequence of exercise undertaken by the Department, price verification was drawn and after having discussion and input from all the relevant stakeholders, the Customs values were determined by the respondent under Section -25(9) read with Section 25(7) in the light of findings of market enquiry. The petitioner has neither given any costing sheet of their imported goods nor has been able to justify or explain the huge price difference between declared value and the landed cost/market selling price. Furthermore, it has been noticed that the petitioner’s import documents viz GD refers to the consigners name as “Handtone Industry Limited Trust Co, Martial Islands China”. Whereas, the copy of Inspection Certificate and Health Certificate, annexed with the petition, are indicated of the name of consigner as “ Shandong Wintop Trade Co Ltd, China”. It is quite clear that such a discrepancy in import declaration was not acceptable within the meaning of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 as the petitioner was also unable to justify transaction value and to furnish the proof of actual payment remitted to the foreign supplier/ consigner of goods. Hence, it was rightly adjudged by the respondent in the impugned ruling to disregard the claim for acceptance of declared value.
In view of the forgoing position of the case, it is concluded that the petitioner has been unable to put forward any convincing argument against the impugned ruling. I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere
with the Customs Values determined in the impugned Ruling. The petition lacks merit and is thus rejected accordingly.