KARACHI: The director general of the Directorate General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir Khan has rejected a review petition through Order in Revision No. 120 /2015 under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against Amendment to Valuation Ruling (VR) No.701/2014.
This revision petition was filed under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against customs value determined vide Valuation Ruling No.701/2014 dated 24-11-2014 issued under section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 inter alia on the following grounds, as reproduced below:
“Kindly refer Valuation Ruling No.701/2014 dated 24-11-2014 wherein Custom value for PET metalized film has been fixed at US$ 2.15 per kg and PET coated film at $2.25.
In this connection, it is submitted that minimum expense for coating of PET film comes to $1.75 per kilogram whereas you have fixed valuation where difference of coated and metalized film comes to $0.10 only. We are ready to purchase coated PET film at the rate of $3.15 which is cheaper price for us as we already run metallic yarn manufacturing industry. The main expense for manufacturing metallic yarn is involved in coating PET film. The said valuation ruling will create problems for local metallic yarn manufacturing industries. The custom value for coated PET film should be at least fixed at $4.05 per kg.An early action in the matter is solicited.”
The respondent department was asked to furnish comments to the arguments submitted by the petitioner in the case. The comments on the arguments of the petitioner are given as under:
“Para-wise comments on the revision petition filed by M/s Lorex Industries, Karachi against the Valuation Ruling No.701/14 dated 24-11-2014 of PET film are as under:
Para (i) It is submitted that the petitioner has suggested for the enhancement of PET metalized plain uncoated film from $2.15/kg to $4.00/kg and PET coated metalized film from $2.25/kg to $2.50/kg. Otherwise it will create problems for local metallic yarn industries. The basis for enhancement in value has not been submitted in support for justification of their claim. Therefore, the suggestion is not tenable as desired.
Para (ii) It is submitted that the petitioner has pointed out rate of duty in the import of metallic yarn (finished products) as compared to the raw material of metallic yarn is higher than the finished products. The subject issue relates to the tariff commission and is out of the working scope of the respondent, hence, no comments.
Para (iii) It is submitted that the petitioner on the one hand requested to enhance the value of PET metalized plain uncoated film and PET coated metalized film on the other hand requested to decrease the value of PET plain coated from $1.85/kg to $1.63/kg. The logic to decrease and increase of value by the petitioner are not acceptable as both require documentary evidence. Comparison of raw material with finished products in the country of import is not valid as comparison is to be made with the cost of production of the goods being valued and other information which has to be obtained from the country of manufacture. M/s Prostar Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., is not the only manufacturer of metallic yarn. No petition has been filed against the valuation ruling by the other manufacturers M/s Lorex Industries, M/s Brightex Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. M/s.A1-Haj Tex Industries. M/s Converters (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s K&K Enterprises. They are also the stakeholders and are aggrieved exciting with the valuation ruling.
In view of above, the revision application filed is not maintainable and may be rejected.
The department fixed the hearing in this case for 12-03-2015, 23-04-2015 and 28-05-2015. Nobody appeared for the hearing on said dates and time.
Director General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir Khan, in her order, stated that the record of the case has been examined. Scrutiny of the record shows that the petitioner was asked by this office vide letter of even number dated 06-03-2015 to furnish the relevant documents, as to enable this forum to verify truth and accuracy of transaction value as claimed by the petitioner, but import related documents like proforma invoice, bill of lading, L/C etc were not submitted.
As per Rule 109 of the valuation rules issued under SRO 450(I)/2001 dated 18-06-2001 (Chapter-X), in the absence of valid import documents, the burden to prove correctness of transaction value shifts on the importers/petitioners.
Non submission of valid import documents and non-appearance of the petitioner on the given hearing dates clearly manifest that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter any further. As such, the valuation ruling is hereby maintained and the revision petition is dismissed accordingly, the order concluded.