KARACHI: The Directorate General of Customs Valuation revised the customs values of iron or non-alloy steel wire rod low/high carbon (draw quality) through Valuation Ruling No: 1331/2018 under Section 25A of the Customs Act-1969.
Since the earlier custom value of iron or non-alloy steel wire rod low/high carbon (draw quality) determined vide Valuation Ruling No 693/2014 dated 26-09-2014 was considerably old and it needed to revision to reflect the current price trend prevailing in international market of these goods especially the freights. This prompted an exercise to re-determine the Custom values of therefore stated goods under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969.
Meeting with Stakeholders was held on 08-01-2018, 05.04.2018 & 12.09.2018, the participants were requested to submit invoices of imports during last three months showing factual value.
Websites, names and e-mail addresses of known foreign manufacturers of the item in question through which the actual current value can be ascertained.
Copies of Contracts made / LCs opened during the last three months showing the value of item in question. iv) copies of sales tax invoices issued during last four months showing the difference in price (excluding duty and taxes) to substantiate that the benefit of difference in price.
Different stakeholders including importers and officers from clearance Collectorate attended the meetings. The main contention of the importers was that the amount of freight has been kept at very value whereas actual freights have significantly reduced.
Moreover, the import in break-bulk has not been considered while determining the values. Certain stakeholders contended that additions on account of draw quality have also been kept at high value. All the contentions of the participants were heard in detail and considered while determining customs value of the subject item.
Valuation methods given in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 were applied sequentially to address the valuation issue at hand. Transaction Value Method under Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act ibid was found inapplicable because required information under the law was not available.
