Sunday , June 24 2018
Breaking News
Home / Karachi / DG Valuation revises customs values of stationery items

DG Valuation revises customs values of stationery items

KARACHI: The Directorate General of Customs Valuation has revised the customs values of stationery items-I (raw materials) Valuation Ruling No 1181/2017 under Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969.

The Customs values of stationery items were earlier determined vide Valuation Ruling No.961/2016, dated 11-11-2016. The customs values of some items were revised by the Director General of Customs Valuation vide Order-in-Revision No. 275/2016, dated 20-12-2016. Many importers filed appeals under Section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969, against the Order-in-Revision, before the honourable Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi.

Meanwhile, some importers approached this Directorate General with the request for provisional clearances under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, in the light of High Court of Sindh, Karachi’s judgment in C.P.No.6918/2015, dated 14-11-2015, read with honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan’s order, dated 04-08-2016. As the previous Valuation Ruling needed revision in the light of above situation, an exercise was initiated to determine the customs values of Stationery Items, with a view to reflect the current prices prevailing in the international market.

Meetings with stakeholders were held on 18-05-2017 and 25-05-2017. The stakeholders were requested to bring following documents to make the meeting fruitful.

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. 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 is passed on to the local buyers.

The meeting was attended by different stakeholders. The stakeholders proposed that owing to differences in points of view of importers vis-a-vis local manufacturers, the ruling was being challenged by different stakeholders.