KARACHI: Customs Valuation Director General Samaira Nazir Khan has disposed of a review petition against Valuation Ruling 659/2014 through its order in revision under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969.
The appellant prayed for making some corrections to ruling, which include:
- Sr.No.197: Size 14.6/13-28 6PR should be corrected to 14.9/13-28 8PR. This correction was made vide Corrigendum No. Misc-08/2005-III/737.
- Sr. No. 206: Size 15.5-38 6PR should be corrected to 15.5-38 8PR. This correction has been made earlier vide Corrigendum No. I/367/2009-III/495 dated June 26, 2010 but again it has not been revised for the current year.
- Sr. No. 205: Size 15.5 R38 6PR should be corrected to 15.5 R38 8PR. Moreover, as per subject valuation, above stated sizes must be mentioned under “all other origin” instead of only existing “international brand”.
The order stated that this revision petition was filed on 10.12.2014 by the Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lahore, against Valuation Ruling 659/2014 dated 29.03.2014, which was found to be time-barred by about eight months.
In her order, Valuation Director General Samaira Nazir Khan stated that the issue relates to valuation of tyres and tubes, covered under HSC 4011.1000, which was decided in continuity to previous ruling 295/2011. The petitioners were initially provided a hearing opportunity on 24.02.2015 and they were asked to give their explanation on the time-barred limitation. Since no reply to the same was received, another chance was given to them on 17.03.2015.
Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry former vice president Shafqat Saeed Peracha and others appeared for hearing and reiterated the arguments submitted vide memo of appeal. However, their submission was silent on the point of time-barred factor.
“I have examined the petitioner’s written/oral submissions and have also gone through the facts of the case on record. At the very outset, I find that the instant review petition was technically time-barred by over eight months. In this regard, the petitioners were informed that the case was barred by time vide this office letter No.DG(V)Val.Rev/156/2015/8222 dated 16-02-2015 but they failed to provide justification for this undue delay in the filing of this petition. I am therefore not inclined to consider this petition on its merit. Nevertheless, it is observed that on the point of argument concerning changes/amendments in the description of goods’ column of impugned ruling, concerning correction of size numbers etc, it has been stated in the departmental comments that an exercise to revise the impugned valuation ruling has already been undertaken by the respondent and amendment, if any, shall be included in the fresh ruling.
