KARACHI: The Directorate General of Customs Valuation revised the customs value of chemicals, methylene chloride, propylene glycol, sodium-B1-carbonate, mono sodium glutamate, calcium acetate and calcium propionate through Valuation Ruling No: 1044/2017 under Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969.
According to details, consequent upon in the back drop of the Director General Customs Valuation orders vide Order-1n- Revision No. 271/2016 dated 14.12.2016, regarding revision of Valuation Ruling No. 948/2016 dated 06.10.2016, with reference to customs value of propylene glycol Thailand origin.
Sources said that an exercise was undertaken to re-determine the customs values of subject chemicals, in terms of Section 25-A of the Customs Act 1969. There were also several representations from different importers/ traders and trade bodies i.e. Pakistan Chemicals and Dyes Merchants Association (PCDMA), for determination of customs value of the subject chemicals.
The importers have claimed that the prices of subject chemicals are showing down ward trend in the International market hence existing valuation ruling, which is over 90 days old is required to be revised in the light of honorable High Court of Sind, at Karachi’s orders dated 10.11.2015 in Constitutional Petition No. D- 6918/2015. Since 90 days have passed and a number of representations were received from commercial importers and trade Associations regarding values determined in afore mentioned valuation ruling, hence an exercise was initiated to re-determine the values of subject chemicals.
Stakeholders’ participation in determination of Customs values: Meeting with all the stakeholders including importers, trade bodies i.e. Pakistan Chemicals and Dyes Merchants Association (PCDMA) and representatives from clearance Collectorates, was held on 11.01.2017 and 09.02.2017 to discuss the current international prices of the subject chemicals. The view point of all participants was heard in detail and considered to arrive at Customs value for subject Chemicals.
The transaction value method as provided in Sub-Section (1) of Section 25, found inapplicable in light of the wide variety of invoices submitted at import stage the veracity of which could not be ascertained fully.
