KARACHI: Director General of Customs Valuation, Samaira Nazir Khan through Order in Revision No 99/2015 has disposed of a revision petition against Valuation Ruling (V/R) No 645/2014 related to the import of porcelain ware/ glassware, remanding back the case to the Director Customs Valuation with a view to giving a chance to the petitioner of another hearing/rebuttal and to examine/re-determine valuation of porcelain ware/glassware of UAE origin specifically as covered in ruling No 645/2014 dated 18-03-2014.
The revision petition was filed under Section 25-D of the Customs Act 1969 against Customs value determined for porcelain ware/glassware vide Valuation Ruling No 645/2014 dated 18-03-2014 issued under Section 25-A of the Customs Act 1969 inter alia on the following grounds as reproduced below.
According to details, the petitioner S M Bashir Agencies, Sahiwal through its representative Asif Iqbal prayed that “we introduce ourselves as regular importers of porcelain “catering table ware seven kitchen ware” and importing this item mainly from United Arab Emirates (UAE) since last many years. Being aggrieved with the subject valuation ruling, we explain that following points which have not been taken into account while determining the Customs values of the subject goods:-
- a) That we have not been heard while exercising the determination of Customs value due to which we could not submit our comments on reply.
- b) Valuation methods as laid down in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 i.e. transaction value method under Section 25(1), transaction value of identical goods under Section 25(5), transaction value of similar goods under Section 25(6) of the Customs Act 1969 have not been exhausted in accordance with its spirit due to the following reasons.
- i) The word used in Para-2 of the subject valuation ruling i.e. sufficient information unreliable and variable are not itself grounds for rejection of transaction value under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act 1969.
- ii) Similarly physical data under Section 25(5) of the Section 25(6) of the Customs Act 1969 have not also been considered and these methods of valuation have not been adopted and rejected on the basis of mentioning few words “sufficient information unreliable and variable values.”
The petitioner giving some more reasons said that in the light of the above mentioned fact we are filing petition under Section 25-D of Customs Act 1969, and hope that the department shall thoroughly study and analyze our review petition as compare to China value and may kindly advice your Appraisement Department that, meantime not apply this V/R on our import consignment”.
The Director General of Customs Valuations in her order remarked, “I have examined the petitioner’s verbal and written arguments and have also gone through the facts of the case on record. It has been observed that the issuance of valuation ruling on importation of porcelain ware/ glassware and its subsequent revision/updating was primarily based upon the complaint of under invoicing. As a consequence of exercise under taken by the department, price verification was drawn and after having discussion and input from all relevant stakeholders, the Customs values were determined by the respondent under Section 25(9) read with Section 25(7) in the light of findings of market enquiry.
The petitioners have contested the impugned ruling on the grounds that same was on higher side. It was also emphasized that the weight of petitioner’s product was comparably much higher that the weight of other similar goods imported from various sources. In support of this statement, a representative sample of the imported goods was also presented to demonstrate the difference of weight factor.
Considering the above stated case position and in order to facilitate the petitioner with opportunity to justify the fairness of declaration, the case is remanded back to the Director Customs Valuation.
The petitioner may be provided another chance of hearing/rebuttal and to examine/re-determine valuation of porcelain ware/glassware of UAE origin specifically as covered in Ruling No 645/2014 dated 18-03-2014 in the light of submission made by them. The review petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.
