KARACHI: Director General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir has rejected a review petition through Order in Revision No. /2015 under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, against Valuation Ruling No 677/2014 dated 30-06-2014 on the grounds of lacking merit.
This revision petition was filed under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against Customs value determined for UPS vide Valuation Ruling No.677/2014 dated 30-06-2014 issued under section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 inter alia on the following grounds, as reproduced below;
“We hereby request for a review petition of some of the item on below grounds:
- AA) It seems that category B prices have been calculated based on certain formula of % applied to Category “A” price list of ups thus causing wide distortion in some of the models/VA ratings which we request you to please review as requested below.
Line interactive category HS Code 8504.4010 with batteries
850VA category was missed in the ITP and this is being accessed under 1 KVA price
- Please insert a category of 850Va and Price for 850va “Category B” is US$ 50.00 as being accessed at US$ 162 (over accessed by US$ 117)
- Serial No 3- 651Va to 1 Kva price is mentioned as US$ 162.00 this should be revised down to US$ 65.00 (over accessed by US$ 97)
- Serial No 4- 1.1Kva to 1.5 Kva price is mentioned as US$ 234.00 this should be revised down to US$ 100 (over accessed by US$ 134)
On Line category HS Code 8504.401018504.4090 with batteries
- Serial No 8- Online UPS from 1.1Kva to 2 Kva mentioned as US$ 374 to be bought down to USD 270.00 ) (over accessed by US$ 104)
- Serial No 9- Online UPS from 2.1Kva to 3 Kva mentioned as US$ 468 to be bought down to USD 370.00 (over accessed by US$ 98)
- Serial No. 13- Online UPS from 8.1Kva to 10Kva mentioned as US$ 1,513 to be bought down to USD 1200.00 (over accessed by US$ 313)
We have got certified copies on our USA manufacturers Asian office letterhead duly certified by Singapore Notary Office and certified by Pakistan Consulate in Singapore. This document is duly stamped and sealed and if required we can submit the same for your kind consideration.
- BB) We also request that a clarification is to be issued that if a UPS VA range is given for a line items such as 8.1-10 KVA value to accessed proportionally as currently Customs officials are accessing 8.1KVA and 10KVA at same price as mentioned in ITP, where as the price mentioned should be taken for maximum capacity i.e. US$ 1513 for 10 KVA in this case and 8.1KVA should be accessed at a lower value proportionally.
- CC) Another point which is missing is that UPS if imported w/o batteries value to be accessed at least 20-25% lower than above mentioned ITP values. Current ITP is silent and customs officials will access UPS w/o batteries at same price as with batteries.”
- The respondent department was asked to furnish parawise comments to the arguments submitted by the petitioner in this case. The parawise comments on the arguments of the petitioners as contained in the memo of petitions are given as under:
“The Petitioner has contested against this valuation stating the following arguments;
- a) That the value of certain category of UPS was missing in the VR and in respect of certain items i.e. Sr. No 3, 4, 8, 9 & 13 may be revised downward.
- b) That there should be some clarification on goods imported without batteries.
The determination of customs value u/s 25-A is based upon the findings of market enquiry which was decided with the active participation and input from all stakeholders. As regards, the importation of goods without batteries, the Director Valuation has issued amendment to cover the aspect of batteries.”
- This Revision Petition was filed against Valuation Ruling No 677/2014 dated 30.06.2014. It was fixed for hearing on 17.02.2015, which was attended by the petitioners’ Counsel Rana Nasrullah Clearing agent on behalf of M/s Computer Marketing. The main argument put forth was that vide Valuation Ruling No 677/2014 dated 30.06.2014 their goods have been mentioned at category B, whereas it qualifies to be in category C on the basis of documentary evidence regarding price/value. The document namely Price List attested by the Singapore Embassy in Pakistan was furnished.
In her order the Director General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazi Khan said that she had examined the petitioner’s 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 Un-interruptable Power Supply (UPS) was in continuation to the ruling previously decided on the subject vide No.447/2012 dated 26.032012. As a consequence of exercise under taken by the department to update and revise the same, price verification was drawn and after having discussion and input from all the relevant stakeholders, the customs values were determined by the Respondent under section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969, in the light of findings of market inquiry. The impugned ruling covers the valuation of three different categories and group of renowned goods, which are identified through their brand/trade name. It is obvious that the market value of a commodity is mainly dependent upon the credibility of its brand name/logo and reputation of its quality/worth. As such, while making out a determination with this background, the Respondents have apparently evaluated a conclusion in bracketing different brands in ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ categories, which imply that this categorization was formulated as per their actual market price, established through the findings of inquiry.
- The petitioners have contested the impugned ruling on afore cited ground and have also referred to submission of certain documents to support their contention. It has been observed that the price list dated 10-04-2014 presented by them, was a document communicated on petitioner’s own request, indicating ex-works Singapore prices which obviously requires value adjustment on account of local handing, freight charges, commission etc. As such, it cannot be regarded to represent the actual transaction value of imported goods. Furthermore, the said document, a purported price list carries an endorsement by Notary Public, Singapore to certify the document but not its contents and was thus un-acceptable under the law.
- In their written submission, while agitating against the impugned ruling, petitioners have prayed for adjustment of their assesable value in category ‘C’ instead of category ‘B’. However, there was no insistence for the acceptance of import declarations, inferring that the petitioners had no case on the transaction value of imported goods. In such situation, doubtful declarations did not qualify for acceptance, resulting in subsequent methods of valuation which were rightly adopted after exhausting sequential applicability of law.
- As regards the determination, departmental representative has defended the ruling on valid points as contained in the reply objections. It explains that the revised valuation was decided after having input and participation of representatives of trade body/stakeholders and keeping in view the valuation methods as provided under section 25 (9) read with section 25(7) of the Customs Act, 1969, which is indicative of the position that the guidelines on sequential methods defined under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, as referred in the judgment of Honourable Court were duly followed. The record of the case further shows that reliance has been made by the department upon substantial findings, which shows consideration and valid application of law in the issuance of the impugned ruling. The respondents have given valid reasons as reproduced at above Para to justify issuance of Ruling by determining customs value of the impugned goods in accordance with law and prescribed procedure. The basis of value drawn there under the aforesaid provision of law seems to have been aptly equated in the reply objections given by the Respondent.
- In view of the foregoing conclusion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned valuation. The revision petition fails and is thus rejected which lacks merit.
