KARACHI: Director General of the Directorate General Customs Valuation, Sumaira Nazir Khan has disposed of a review petition filed by Lahore Chamber of Commerce, against Valuation Ruling No. 659/2014 related to tyres and tubes as .it lacked merit.
As per details, the appellant requested for making the corrections into the subject Valuation Ruling No.659/2014 under section 25A of Customs Act, 1969. The appellant suggested some amendments in size numbers of the tyres and tubes, besides asking that “stated sizes must be mentioned under “All other origin” instead of only existing “International brand”. Followed by the criteria of “All other origin” under valuation ruling which is 15% less than international brand.”
The order stated that this revision petition was filed on December 10, 2014 by LCCI against Valuation Ruling No 659/2014 dated 29.03.2014, which was found time-barred by about eight months.
In her order Director General Customs Valuation, Sumaira Nazir Khan stated that “the issue relates to valuation of Tyre & Tubes covered under HSC 4011.1000 which was decided in continuity to previous Ruling No 295/2011. The petitioner was initially provided a hearing opportunity on February 24, 2015 and they were asked to give their explanation on the time bar limitation. Since no reply to the same was received, another chance was given to them on March 17, 2015. Shafqat Saeed Peracha former Vice President of LCCI and Chairman of Tyre Association (Lahore Chapter) and Furqan Hanif, Joint secretary, appeared for hearing and reiterated the arguments submitted vide memo of appeal. However, their submission was silent on the point of time bar factor.”
However, DG stated while concluding the order that “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 February 16, 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/amendment in the description of goods’ column of impugned ruling, concerning correction of size numbers etc. The revision petition shall stand disposed of in these terms, the order concluded.”
