KARACHI: Samaira Nazir Khan, the director general of the directorate general of the customs valuation, in an order-in-revision issued against the impugned Valuation Ruling No 695/2014 linked with the sodium lauryl ether sulphate, has given an opportunity to the petitioner Olstar Enterprises to present their viewpoint before the Customs Valuation director to re-examine the Valuation Ruling No 695/2014 and enable them to justify the fairness of the declared transaction value.
While analysing the matter afresh, other stakeholders may also be called before drawing out a conclusion in accordance with law.
According to details, the importer Olstar Enterprises had filed a review petition under Section 25-D of the Customs Act 1969 against the Customs value determined for sodium lauryl ether sulphate vide Valuation Ruling No 695/2015 issued under Section 25-A of the Customs Act 1969 inter alia on the following grounds, as reproduced below:
The importer was adopted the view point that the respondent (customs authorities) has issued the valuation ruling whimsically and in paragraph I of the valuation ruling stated. “An exercise to re-determine the Customs Values of SLES initiated in terms of Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 has been done.
This, however, is in stark contradiction the paragraph No 2, where in the respondent found the valuation method 25(1) the transactional value was in-applicable.
It is submitted that there is no visible indication in the contents of paragraph 1 and 2 that do not contain any valuable proposal/input fourth by the concerned collectorate, same have been considered/applied in the determination of impugned VR, whereas no input given by leading multi-national manufacturers are available in the VR.
The importer (petitioner) further stated in its review petition that no calculation method was incorporated in impugned valuation ruling in order to show that the cost-profit ration the sale/purchase by importers/wholesalers/dealers/retailers after proper application by work back method right from the point of sale at the retailers end up to the point of purchase at the importers end.
The importer further added that there was no justification or valid reasoning to deter for manifold increase in valuation of all sodium lauryl ether sulphate of any Asian origin.
