KARACHI: The Director General of the Directorate General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir Khan has rejected a review petition through Order in Revision No.113 /2015 under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against Amendment to Valuation Ruling No.712/2012 dated 29-1-2015.
This revision petition was filed under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against customs value determined vide Valuation Ruling No.712/2015 dated 29-1-2015 issued under section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 inter alia on the following grounds, as reproduced below:
“Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the valuation ruling issued by Director Customs Valuation, we request your honour to kindly issue order for the revision of the ruling in question on the following grounds:
A new description has been added in the ruling classifying construction bars as alloy steel bars at a value less than the alloy steel bars. This ruling allows import of construction bars in garb of alloy bars to avoid duties and other taxes on much low valuation. The valuation of alloy steel bars in our opinion should be in excess of US$ 1300 to 1500 per ton.
Two valuations cannot be applied for the same product imported from the same country.
Almost all countries of the world have taken measures against this back door influx of cheap steel product hurting their local industry. Some the countries that have put duties and taxes in support of their local steel industry are United States of America, Canada, Vietnam , Thailand India, Egypt, Indonesia etc.,
We request your good-self to kindly give a stay on the above ruling and revert the valuations values as per last ruling which is our case is through not reflective of current prices and market conditions but will be acceptable to us.
The respondent department was asked to furnish comments to the arguments submitted by the petitioner in this case. The comments on the arguments of the petitioners are given as under:
“It is briefly submitted that the customs value of alloy and non-alloy steel bar/deformed steel bar, was previously determined under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, vide Valuation Ruling No.545 dated 26-3-2013. With a view to revise the same in order to bring the values in accordance with prevailing international market prices, necessary action was under taken. In the process of its revision and updating of Valuation Ruling, representations from local manufacturers and importers were examined.
The order stated that this Revision Petition was filed against Valuation Ruling No.712/2015 dated 29.1.2015 regarding valuation of Alloy & Non Alloy Iron Steel Bar. It was fixed for hearing on 30.4.2015, which was attended by Mr. Zoeb Salemwala, Director of the petitioners. He repeated his submissions already advanced through petition agitating against Valuation Ruling No 712/2015 and mainly stressed that the previous valuation ruling on the subject may be maintained on the following grounds;
- a) That the customs data reflects price of alloy bars at $ 900 to 1000 per ton and as such there was no need to reduce the valuation of alloy bars.
- b) That boron/chromium added bars are classified as Alloy bars.
- c) That LMB reflects indicative prices and do not represent actual transaction prices.
- d) That steel rebar/deformed bars with addition of boron or chromium needs 13% value addition on account of export rebate given by suppliers.
- e) That export duty @15% on non alloy bars from China was not included in the subject valuation.
It has been observed that the impugned Valuation Ruling was actually a revision of old Valuation Ruling No 545/2013 dated 26.3.2013. It indicates that the previous valuation ruling was issued on the criteria of average LMB prices which were worked out as per formula derived after detailed deliberations held with the importers and stakeholders. Record shows that due to consistent agitation from the importer’s group against the average values, the basis of value was revised and applicability of LMB prevalent at the relevant period of transaction was adopted forimplementation. As regards valuation of alloy bars, there is just a fractional difference between the contended value and impugned valuation ruling and as such there is no force in the petitioners’ argument.
However, as the subject valuation is based upon prevailing LMB price, the legitimate expenses/value additions have been substantially adjusted in the determined customs value of imported goods.
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 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, Director General Customs Valuation Samaira Nazir Khan stated that she do not find any sustainability in the submission made by the petitioners and the petition is thus rejected which lacks merit.
