KARACHI: Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday observed that it is settled proposition of law that a Valuation Advice (and not a Valuation Ruling) is nothing but an advice which has no binding effect, whereas, it is not to be taken as a conclusive evidence while making assessment of goods and reliance upon the valuation advice simpliciter is not a valid basis of assessment of the value of imported goods within the framework of section 25 of Custom Act, 1969.
A division bench of SHC comprised of Justice Junaid Ghaffar and Justice Agha Faisal in the order of multiple petitions gave these observations, which were filed against the by letter issued in February 2018 by the then Collector of Customs (East) to Member (Customs) Federal Board of Revenue, through which values of different types of Artificial jewellery of Indian origin was determined, and at the same time was notified advising all the other Collectorates to make assessment of such goods on the basis of the determined values.
According to a order of the bench, the petitioners submitted that the letter has been issued without any lawful authority; whereas the Director Valuation had already issued a Valuation Ruling No.1007 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017 of such goods, which was then challenged in Revision before the Director General Valuation under s.25D of the Customs Act, 1969, and through order dated 08.02.2017 certain values were revised, which were in field; hence the letter of Collector in question cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, counsel for respondents supported the letter on the ground that some under invoicing was detected in respect of imports by private enterprises and, therefore, this letter was issued; whereas the Director General Valuation was advised to revise the values as well.
Bench in its order stated that it asked the counsel for the respondents to refer to or cite, as to any authority or powers vested in the Collector to first determine the values of goods in question; and then circulate the same amongst other Collectorates and to this no satisfactory response has been given.
Court observed that under section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 (post Finance Act, 2019) it is the Director of Valuation, who can determine the values after following the methods as provided under section 25 and notify the same and against this determination, an aggrieved person can approach the Director General for its revision under section 25D of the Act.
Though, at the relevant time (pre Finance Act, 2019), in terms of s.25A of the Act, the Collector of Customs, on his own motion was competent to issue a Valuation Ruling; but the said letter admittedly is not a Valuation Ruling; but is an advice at the most, which per settled law has no binding force; nor the Collector has any jurisdiction to do so, court observed.
Moreover, it is also settled proposition of law that a Valuation Advice (and not a Valuation Ruling) is nothing but an advice which has no binding effect, whereas, it is not to be taken as a conclusive evidence while making assessment of goods; and reliance upon the valuation advice simpliciter is not a valid basis of assessment of the value of imported goods within the framework of section 25 of the Act.
Bench set aside the letter No. MCC/MISC/49/2018- R&D(East) (February 2018) and ordered the respondents, in respect of consignment(s) which were released under section 81 of Customs Act, 1969 shall pass final assessment orders after affording opportunity of being heard in accordance with law and without being influenced by the letter which already stands set aside.
Court ordered that such exercise be carried out keeping in view the Valuation Ruling and the Order in Revision as above which were in field at the relevant being statutory in nature in terms of section 25A read with Section 25D of the Customs Act.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
Comments
Comments are closed.