KARACHI: The Directorate General of Customs Valuation department has issued order in revision no 183/2016 under section 25-D of the Customs Act 1969 against valuation ruling no 813/2016 dated 28-01-2016.
The case was between M/s L’Oreal Pakistan Ltd versus Director Customs Vacation, the revision petition was filed under section 25-D of the Customs Act 1969 against customs determined vide valuation ruling no 28-01-2016 issued under section 25-A of the Customs Act 1969 inter alia on the following grounds as reproduced below.
Being aggressive and dissatisfied with the ruling no 813 of 2016 dated 28-1-2016 the “impugned ruling” before this honorable authority on the following facts and ground. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated in Pakistan under the companies Ordinance 1984 and a subsidiary of the L’Oreal Group which is an internationally recognized name in the field of cosmetics, hair care products, toiletries continue to develop more products in the same field time to time.
The petitioner scrupulously discharges its liabilities under various laws and has contributed huge some to national exchequer by way of inter alia, diligent payment of duties and taxes. The petitioner in due course of its business under takes imports from various countries around the world including USA, France, India many others of various toiletries.
That the despondent director while considering whether or not to revise the values of Creams and Lotions contained in the previous Valuation Ruling No 589 if 2013, failed to take into account the dictates of section 25-A of the Customs Act 1969 and while causing immense prejudice and harm to the petitioner, the respondent director without any application of mind and in fashion patently contrary to the law issued the impugned ruling without any determination of the values and decided to determine the value of the product under sub-section (7) of section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 (the “Customs Act”).
It is pertinent to note at the outset that the respondent director has, at paragraph 4 of the Impugned Ruling rejected most of the methods of valuation enshrined in section 25 of the Customs Act. in the order the DG Valuation stated that, I have examined the record of the case as well as written and verbal arguments put forward by the learned advocate of the petition and respondents.
The petitioner further stated that Sunsilk Shampoo of M/s Unilever Brothers is of same price that if L’Oreal shampoos but placed in ‘D’ category while it should be placed in ‘A’ category. Similarly they pointed out that Head & Shoulders and Pentene were left out.
The matter was examined through fresh market survey. As per survey petitioner’s products fall under ‘A’ category. Hence, in view of the above review application does not merit consideration and is accordingly rejected. However, the Director Customs Valuation is directed to issue new valuation ruling after removing anomalies and including those brands have been left out.
