KARACHI: The Director General of the Directorate General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir Khan has rejected a review petition through Order in Revision No 96/2015 under Section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 against Valuation Ruling No 645/2014 dated 18-03-2014, filed by M/s Al-Tawakal Gift & Varieties Karachi, M/s Mansuri Trading Co Karachi, M/s Shoaib Impex, Karachi, M/s United Traders, Karachi, M/s Zamir Brothers Karachi, M/s The Karachi Crockery & Glassware Merchants Association Karachi and M/s HM Trading Co Karachi.
The revision petition was filed under Section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 against Customs value determined for porcelain glass ware vide Valuation Ruling No 645/2014 dated 18-03-2014 issued under Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 on the following grounds as reproduced below;
M/s Al-Tawakal Gift & Varieties:
“The Valuation Department issued the above mentioned Valuation Ruling showing the unit prices of glass ware of a kind use for table, kitchen indoor decoration (clear/opal). In the said Valuation Ruling, you mentioned the different prices of the different origin mentioned below;
- China $0.85/kg
- Indonesia $0.65/kg
- Iran $0.70/kg
4.Saudi Arabia $0.88/kg
“We are the only importer, who import the glassware goods from Saudi Arabia and we think that the value fixed of origin Saudi Arabia, on its too much higher side, because the goods are of same category in quality as market value of origins Indonesia and Iran. And from import of the same item from China, the importers to get the benefit of FTA under SRO 659(1)/2007 and that they get the assessment on lower side.”
M/s H M Trading Company:
“We are the regular Importer of glassware and mostly imported our consignment from UAE. Previously the Valuation Department had issued the Valuation Ruling No 495/2012 dated 27-11-2012 in which the department had fixed the unit price of $0.70/kg of Chinese and UAE origin.
Now another Valuation Ruling vide No 645/2014 dated 18-03-2014 has issued by the Valuation Department in which they have fixed the unit price of Chinese origin @ $0.85/kg and $0.92/kg of UAE origin.
In this connection we are facing problem of clearance of our consignment.
M/s Mansuri Trading Co M/s Shoaib Impex, M/s United Traders,M/s Zamir Brothers and M/s The Karachui Crockery & Glassware Merchants Association in their identical petitions requested for reconsideration of the current Valuation Ruling and issue corrigendum after consulting with the trade and also conduct of the market inquiry under Section 25 D of Customs Act 1969.”
ORDER
- The revision petition along with other identical petition (case NO 53/2014; 82/2014; 83/2014; 84/2014; 85/2014 86/2014 %87/2014) were filled against valuation ruling No 645/2014 dated 18-03-2014. These petition were initially fixed for hearing on 15-04-2014, 05-05-201, 27-05-2014, which were attended by the importers representatives namely Mr Tariq Ilyas – Bilal Enterprise, Mr Shahzad Latif – Al-tawakkal Gift & Varieties and Mr Sultan Rome – S.F International.
However, hearing finally fixed on 03-02-2015 was attended only by Mr Shahzad Latif of Al- Tawakkal Gift & Varieties, Karachi. Refering to the statement contained in written memo of petition. It was requested for review of impugned ruling. It was mainly agreed that;
The determination of Custom value in the impugned Valuation Ruling is unfair and unjustified being on much higher side that the current market price.
It was contented that imported goods is a simple glass-ware product and increase in value bu 30% as compared to previous ruling, is arbitrary very harsh and unbearable to compete in the market.
The ruling was issued on the basis of market enquiry without considering market variation and other reality factor. As such a fair enquiry may be conducted to verify the actual price.
- I have examined the petitioner’s arguments and pursued the case record. It has been observed that the Issuance of Valuation Ruling on importation of Ware/Glass Ware and its subsequent revision/updating was primarily based upon the complaint of under invoicing. As a consequence of exercise undertaken by the department, price verification was drawn and after having decision 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 the findings of market enquiry.
The petitioners have contested the impugned ruling on the ground that tha same is on higher side. However, they were unable to establish their case to demonstrate if the determined customs values were on higher side in comparison to the prices actually prevailing in the international market. As regards increase in prices, the departmental representative has defended thr ruling on the point that the subject Valuation Ruling was in fact issued to revise previous Valuation Ruling No. 495/2012 dated 27.11.201, which was old and needed updating of values as explained in the Department’s comments. Further it was pointed out that the revised valuation was decided after having input and participation of representatives of trade body/stakeholders and keeping in view that the valuation method as provided under section 25 (9) read with section 25 (7).
- The record of the case shows that reliance has been made by the department upon substantial findings, which shows consideration and valid application of law in the issuance of the impugned ruling. The respondents have given valid reasons as reproduced at above para to justify issuance of Ruling by determining customs values of the impugned goods in accordance with law and prescribed procedure. The basis of value drawn there-under the aforesaid provision of law seems to have been apply justified vide the reply given by the Respondent. The impugned Valuation Ruling in therefore maintained.
- In view of the foregoing conclusion, I do not find any sustainability in the submission made by the petitioners and the petition is hereby rejected which lacks merit.