KARACHI: Customs Valuation Director General Samaira Nazir Khan has rejected a revision petition against Valuation Ruling No.701/2014 related to the import of PET Metalized Film and PET Coated Film on the grounds that the petition lacked merit.
The revision petition was filed under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against customs Valuation Ruling No. 701/2014 dated 24-11-2014.
According to details, M/s Prostar Industries Ltd had approached DG Valuation for revising the customs values for Coated and Metalized PET Films that were fixed at $ 2.15 and $ 2.25 per kg consecutively. The importer submitted that the said Valuation Ruling would create problems for local metallic yarn manufacturing industries because the rate fixed at $ 2.25 is very minute.
M/s Prostar, a local manufacturer, was of the view that the customs value for coated PET Film and Metalized Film should be fixed at $ 4.00 and $ 2.50 respectively.
Valuation department said that the subject issue relates to the Tariff Commission and was out of their working scope. Moreover, the local manufacturer’s petition is not acceptable to the fact that it lacks documentary evidences.
The Director General of Customs Valuations in her remarked said that the decision taken by the respondent was in full conformity with all the material facts including the international prices of plastic raw material and hence termed that the decision was based on sound footings including input of all concerned stakeholders.
“I have examined the petitioner’s written and oral submission and have also gone through the facts of the case on record. It has been observed that this ruling was a sequel to previous Valuation Ruling No. 595/2013. This said previous ruling was also contested under Section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969, by the same petitioner along-with other importers. The same was however, decided vide Order in Revision No. 42/2014 dated 15-04-2014, and directions were given to re-examine the basis of said valuation ruling. Subsequently, through impugned Valuation Ruling the valuation of BoPET/ Holographic Film was revised and decided afresh as per findings in terms of section 25 (7) read with Section 25(9) of the Customs Act 1969. It is evident from the case record that the revised decision was taken by the respondent after taking into consideration all the material facts presented by the importers/stakeholders, witnessing a situation that there was some decline in the international price of the plastic raw material, as also admitted in the petitioner’s written submission. The petitioner has stressed upon the cost of their production which could be relatively higher but in the absence of any detail particulars of expenses actually incurred in the country of manufacture/origin of goods, the petitioner’s argument concerning their costing sheet was not found valid or convincingly acceptable”, stated the order.
After considering all aspects of the case, the Director General Customs Valuation dismissed the review petition filed by M/s Prostar Industries Ltd as it lacked merit.
