Tuesday , January 23 2018
Breaking News
Home / Breaking News / Order-in-Revision issued against VR No460/12
Order-in-Revision issued against VR No460/12

Order-in-Revision issued against VR No460/12

KARACHI: The Directorate General of Customs Valuation issued an Order-in-Revision against the Valuation Ruling No 460/12 under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969.

The Petitioner M/s Yunus Brothers and others through a filed petition No65/2014 adopted the view point that being a seasoned importer of offset printing paper from Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, China and other countries through a renowned indenter namely M/s International Business Management (IBM) were not satisfied the legality of impugned ruling has become invalid and ineffective.

The petitioner was accorded due to opportunity of hearing for necessary consideration in the light of orders dated 07-04-2014 passed by the Honorable High Court of Sindh in CP No. D-4125 of 2013 and the orders dated 04-09-2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal Customs and Central Excise-Karachi in Customs Appeal No K-489/2013, with particular reference to the Islamabad High Court (IHC)’s Order dated 30-07-2012 passed in WP No 2510/2012.

The petitioners made reference to the representation dated 18-03-2014 by All Pakistan Paper Merchants Association and requested for early decision in the pending petitions. The petitioner’s Counsel also moved written statement, reiterating the submission as already advanced in the memo of petition and prayed for decision in the pending petitions. It was stressed by the learned advocate that in view of the orders passed by the superior authorities and emerging changes, the legality of the impugned ruling has become invalid and ineffective.

It is pertinent to mention here that the SHC in CP No.2673/2011 has given the important guidelines for determination of value of the goods and directed the Customs authorities to determine such values in accordance in purview of the said guideline.

The Customs Appellate Tribunal also observed and accepted the contention that transaction value of the different brands depended on quality, reputation, specification and characteristics, therefore, the Tribunal held its decision in appeal No K-1129/2011 that the country wise determination of value under Section 25-A is violation of the provisions of sub-section (5), (6) and (13) of Section 25(A) of the Act, 1969.

Subsequently, the Deputy Director, Valuation as per the directions of Honorable Islamabad High Court has called meeting of all trade bodies and stakeholders for redetermination of Customs value of the impugned goods. In the meeting, it was decided that the a joint-market survey of the goods i.e. photocopy paper A4 and offset paper shall be conducted for valuation by a committee on the basis of work back method prescribed under Section 25(7) of the Act, 1969.

Later, the neutral finding regarding the determination of value of impugned goods has been given by the committee and sent to the Customs authorities for implementation which included goods photocopy paper A4 at US$763/metric tons and offset printing paper US$726per metric tons.

Although, the Customs authorities while rejecting and neglecting the survey of the neutral company i.e. M/s Makro, Saddar-Karachi was not fulfilling their commitment of issuance of valuation ruling in accordance with the neutral survey. In the Order-in Revision, the Directorate General stated that the record of case has been examined and the written reply submissions put forward by the petitioners have been considered.

The order further stated, it has been observed that the during the pendency of this revision petition, the issue relating to the disputed valuation as covered in the VR No460/2012 was raised before different legal forums. The issue also concerning the applicability and validity of the impugned ruling was discussed and analyzed at length by the higher judicial fora. “It appears that by nullifying the disputed valuation, the legal position of the impugned Valuation Ruling emerges to have been practically set-aside,” order further stated.