LAHORE: The customs tribunals could not bypass the ruling issued by the Classification Committee for determination of Pakistan Customs Tariff (PCT) Heading related to the goods imported.
Also, tribunals could not give a different finding unless it could be clearly shown that the determination was arbitrary, fanciful and in violation of the rules and principles relating to classification of goods under the Harmonized System.
According to the ruling of the highest appellate forum, the Classification Committee and its classification rulings have crucial importance with a presumption of regularity attached to its proceedings and findings regarding classification of goods.
As per details, the controversy was regarding determination of the correct classification of goods imported by the tax-payer company, which had imported printed laminated packaging film. The company was granted the facility of clearance of goods under the automatic clearance procedure, which enabled the importer to clear the consignments without subjecting them to examination. The department had completed the assessment on the basis of declarations made by the company itself, which had also declared the HS Code. The assessment was made on the basis of customs duty at the rate of 25 percent and the goods were released accordingly.
Belatedly, the company filed an application seeking refund on the ground that at the time of clearing the goods, customs duties were paid erroneously due to the declaration of an incorrect code and instead of 20 percent the customs duties were paid at the rate if 25 percent.
The department referred the matter to the Classification Committee constituted by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on the request of the company. After following the due process, the committee favoured the department and the department dismissed the refund application. Collector Customs also dismissed the appeal filed by the company. However, the tribunal allowed the appeal while agreeing with the company that the duty must be paid at the rate of 20 percent, and not 25 percent. The higher appellate forum also decided in favour of the company.
But the final appellate forum disagreed with both the below forums, maintaining that the tribunal fell in error by disregarding the classification ruling issued by the committee and preferred to proceed to determine the classification on its own.
