KARACHI: The Collector of Customs (appeals), Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmad Malik, has cancelled the Order in Original (OnO) passed by Deputy Collector of Customs, Adjudication against M/s Iqbal Enterprises.
As per details, M/s Iqbal Enterprises filed an appeal against OnO passed by Deputy Collector, Adjudication, Custom House, Karachi in which the Deputy Collector of Customs, Adjudication passd the ruling that scrutiny of the Goods Declaration in the light of examination report reveals that importer has deliberately mis-declared, in terms of mis leading declaration / specification incomplete description in order to suppress the value and duty and taxes, willfully with a malafide intention and have attempted to defraud the Government from its legitimate revenue amounting to Rs 682,993/-.
The determined value of the offending goods 2 arrives to Rs 1,858,718/-. Thus, the appellants have therefore contravened under the relevant provisions of law and the adjudicating officer held that the charges against the appellant had been proved. The importer has the right to get his goods released/redeemed on payment of 35% redemption fine on the offending value Rs 16,69,567 of the goods amounting to Rs 584,349 for the offence of mis-declaration of description as per Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 alongwith the personal penalty of Rs 50,000.
However, Collector Appeal Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmad Malik said ‘I have examined the case record. The respondents hold that all the goods are in matching quantity, therefore they constitute full bed room set which is listed at Sr. 47 of’ the VR and attracts a higher value than value of SR. 48, 56 and 82 put together. When it was agitated by the appellant that Sr. No. 47 of VR is for 4 pc set, the respondents deducted $ 35 for the fourth piece from the value given in VR but stuck to Sr. No. 47. It is evident that the respondents have assumed something and tried to frame the importer’.
On the contrary the appellants have produced GD’s KPPI-HC-43871, KPPI-HC-37374, KAPW-HC-118577, KAPW-HC-94987, KAPW-HC-83938, wherein same type of assortment, were assessed under Sr. No. 48, 56 and 82 of the VR separately.
‘The respondents’ action is arbitrary and whimsical; they cannot twist VR according to their will. The original order is accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed,’ concluded Malik.
