KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has set aside a corrigendum issued by the Pakistan Customs through which it modified the valuation ruling for assessing the value of cosmetics and toiletries. A division bench, headed by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, announced the verdict on as many as 12 petitions filed by the importers of cosmetics and toiletries challenging the corrigendum.
The court directed the customs authorities to reassess the values of the petitioners’ consignments as per law.
Advocate Ghulamullah, the counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the director Customs Valuation issued two valuation rulings, 596/2013 which apply only to low end and unknown brands and 590/2013 for assessing the value of the rest of toiletries. Later, the customs authorities unlawfully issued a corrigendum through which they amended the Valuation Ruling 590/2013. Through the corrigendum changes were made to the ruling and the names of certain brands were deleted from the list of brands notified under the ruling. The counsel said that the customs authorities unlawfully made changes to the ruling through corrigendum as the ruling can only be modified or superseded by another ruling under Section 25-A of the Customs Act 1969.
The court observed that the director customs valuation has no authority and jurisdiction in law to issue a corrigendum except for the purposes as provided under Section 206 of the Customs Act, whereas, in the instant matter there is not such situation and in fact substantial amendments have been carried out in the valuation ruling in question, which has created distortion in the uniform assessment of the goods, leaving unfettered discretion to be exercised by the assessing officers, and therefore, cannot be sustained.
It ruled that the corrigendum dated October 14, 2013 issued in respect of Valuation Ruling No.590 is declared to have been issued without any lawful authority and is hereby set aside.
The Court directed the customs authorities to finalize assessments of the petitioners’ consignment in questions strictly in accordance with law, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, either in terms of Section 25 or on the basis of a valuation ruling, if otherwise applicable, as the case may be, and without being influenced by the corrigendum, whereas, the amount secured before the Nazir of the court at the time of provisional release of consignments in questions, would be subject to such finalization of assessments.
