KARACHI: The Director General of the Directorate General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir Khan has rejected a review petition through Order in Revision No. 122/2015 under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against amendment to Valuation Ruling No. No.698/2014 dated 06-11-2014.
This revision petition was filed under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against customs value determined vide Valuation Ruling No.698/2014 dated 06-11-2014 issued under section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 inter alia on the following grounds, as reproduced below;
“With reference to the above noted subject the Valuation Department issued the Valuation Ruling No.698/2014 dated 06.11.201.4 Section 25-A of the Custom Act, 1969 in which they have fixed the value of Abrasive Latex Paper Sheet @ $3.5/ per kilogram of China Origin Previous Valuation Ruling No.547/2013 dated 19.04.2013 @ $ 2.88/KG.
We request you to please revise the valuation Corrigendum US$ 2.88 per kilogram under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969.We are the regular importer of this item and we are not in a position to accept such higher Valuation ruling advice.
We hope that you will consider our request sympathetically.” “With reference to the above noted subject the Valuation Department issued the Valuation Ruling No.698/2014 dated 06.11.201.4 Section 25-A of the Custom Act, 1969 in which they have fixed the value of Abrasive Latex Paper Sheet @ $3.5/per kilogram of China Origin Previous Valuation Ruling No.547/2013 dated 19.04.2013 @ $ 2.88/kilogram.
We request you to please revise the valuation Corrigendum $ 2.88 per kilogram under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969.
We are the regular importer of this item and we are not in a position to accept such higher Valuation ruling advice.
We hope that you will consider our request sympathetically.”
- The petitioners submitted written submissions which are reproduced as under:
“We are importer of ABRASIVE PAPER of China since from last 10 years and representing 2 Brands in Pakistan. Our import price is much lower than Korean Abrasive Paper and also lower quality with lower sale price in local market. We bring true facts in your kind knowledge for getting level playing field to sell our material in front of Korean brands.
Ruling on Chinese Latex Waterproof Abrasive Paper is USD 3.50/KG.Ruling on Korean Kraft Waterproof Abrasive gaper is USD 1.70/KG Latex & Kraft Waterproof Paper purposes are same for both origins. Silicon Latex Waterproof Paper is cheap and old technology, Kraft Waterproof Paper is High- Tech and expensive. Selling price of Chinese origin abrasive paper is 30 pct less than Korean (which can be checked in the open market any time). We are unable to compete in local market due to higher valuation ruling of Chinese Abrasive Paper than Korean Waterproof Abrasive Paper, which have higher local sale price than Chinese origin. Due to drastic cut in oil prices. Prices of Abrasive Waterproof Paper reduced 10 Pct in the International Market from 1st March 2015. Ruling of Chinese original Waterproof Abrasive is much higher than Korean Origin.
ORDER: I have examined the petitioners written and verbal submissions, perused the comments offered by respondents and the facts on record. The petitioner has contested the enhancement of value of abrasive latex paper sheet @ $ 3.50/kg of China origin vide Valuation Ruling No.698 dated 06.11.2014 as against @US$ 2.88/kg of previous value. Further that the value determined for Korean Kraft waterproof abrasive paper is @US$ 1.70/kg while latex & kraft waterproof paper purposes are the same and selling price of Chinese origin abrasive paper is 30% less than Korean. They have pleaded that they are unable to compete in the local market and therefore, requested to review ruling structure of both Chinese and Korean origins. The respondent department has submitted in their comments that the fixation of value of for Latex / Kraft Abrasive Paper from China / Korea vide Valuation Ruling No.698/2014 dated 06.11.2014 is correct as it indicates value determination of two different kinds and quality of goods. Though the purpose of both may be silicon but as per its description they are obviously different one being latex and other of Kraft. During market enquiry two different descriptions were ascertained due to difference in physical attribute and wide difference in prices. The petitioner has failed to furnish any contrary evidence to substantiate their contention. The question of 30% less prices of China origin abrasive paper than the Korean origin does not arise in the case of two different description of goods. The relationship of oil prices market competition with abrasive sheet of kraft paper that has not been substantiated which renders rejection of their claim. The petitioner has agitated on self assumed claims on two different descriptions which is unjustifiable. The Respondent has given comparison of both quality of goods as under:
Abrasive Latex Paper Sheet 14-grm/sheet Market sale price @ Pak Rs.8.50/Sheet Abrasive Kraft Paper Sheet 30-grm of China @ Pak Rs.8.00/Sheet 40-grm of Korea @ Pak Rs.11.00/Sheet From the above comparison, it is revealed that abrasive latex paper sheet of 14 grams covers more sheets in 1 kg weight than abrasive kraft paper of Korean origin of 40 grams. It is also pointed out that the abrasive kraft paper sheet of Chinese and Korean origins sheet values as indicated at S.No.06 of the Ruling wherein Chinese prices are approximately 14% on lesser side. Importer is trying to compare two different products in same category whereas ruling itself indicates different categories. The conclusion drawn from the submissions made by the respondent as referred in preceding paragraph, seems to have been well substantiated by and indicative of valid application of law in the issuance of the impugned ruling.
In view of the foregoing conclusion, I do not find any sustainability in the submission made by the petitioners and the petition is thus rejected lacking on merit.