KARACHI: The Directorate General of Customs Valuation revised the customs value of almond through Valuation Ruling No: 1037/2017 under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969.
According to details, the earlier customs values of Almond were determined vide Valuation Ruling No: 635/2014 dated 27-01-2014. Since, the applicable values for dates were determined three years ago, and recently, MCC Quetta also determined the customs values of Almond of Iran origin imported via land route from Iran. It is, therefore deemed necessary to re-determine customs value of almond in order to reflect prevailing price trends vis-à-vis the local and international trading prices. An exercise to re-determine the values of subject goods was accordingly undertaken as per law, for determination of assessable customs values of almonds.
A meeting with stakeholders was held on 03-01-2017 which was duly attended by all the concerned traders. All the stakeholders conceded that the international prices of the subject goods has changed considerably since the previous valuation ruling and requested that the same may be reviewed in light of existent international and local market prices. The view point of all participants was heard in detail and considered to arrive at the assessable value of subject goods under section 25A read with section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969.
Valuation methods provided in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 were duly followed and applied sequentially to address the valuation issue at hand. Transaction value method provided in Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 was found inapplicable because the requisite information under the law was not available to arrive at the transaction value.
Identical/similar goods value method provided in Sub-Sections (5) & (6) of Section 25 ibid were examined for applicability to determine Customs value of subject goods, this data provided some references and indications, however, it was found that the same could not be solely relied upon due to absence of absolute demonstrable evidence of qualities, and quantities of commercial level etc., and also it was observed that same importers provide misleading description while declaring goods, as other types and varieties of similar goods to avoid the application of valuation ruling. Information available was, hence, found inconsistent.
