KARACHI: Director General of Customs Valuation has issued Order in Revision No 340/2017 under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against Valuation Ruling No 1023/2017 dated 30-01-2017. The revision petition was filed by M/s Grace Chemicals.
The petitioner had challenged the prices of the butyl acetate and ethyl acetate, saying the prices are on very higher side in the valuation ruling.
Director General of Customs Valuation Suraiya Ahmed Butt, in her order, stated: “I have gone through the record of the case and submissions made by the petitioners. Scrutiny of record reveals that the applicant was asked by this office vide letter of even number dated 21-03-2017 to furnish import documents but he did not furnish the requisite documents like proforma invoice, commercial invoice, bill of lading, packing list, L/C so as to enable this forum to verify truth and accuracy of his declared value. As per Rule 109 of the Valuation Rules issued under SRO 450(1)/2001 dated 18th June 2001 (Chapter-X), in the absence of valid import documents, the burden to prove correctness of the transaction value shifts on the importers / applicants. The appellant who did not furnish import documents thus failed to substantiate cause of his grievance with conclusive evidence.
“After listening to the detailed arguments of the respondents/petitioners and perusal of case record; it is evident that the valuation department had duly taken on board the stakeholders including importers, trade bodies i.e. Pakistan Chemical and Dyes Merchants Association (PCDMA) and representatives from clearance Collectorates while issuing the impugned valuation ruling.
“They were given sufficient time and opportunity to give their inputs including documentary proof evidence to substantiate their transaction value but they failed to provide any documentary proof or fact in Support of their declared values which were abysmally low. On the other hand the DR presented details of comprehensive working on record to support the values determined by them.
“In view of aforesaid factual improprieties and legal infirmities, the review application merits no consideration and is accordingly rejected.”
