| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1119 2013 SLD 1119 (2013) 107 TAX 69 2013 PTD 825 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.1756 of 2010, decision dated: 29-05-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2012
RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Mian Muhammad Athar, Toufique Asif, Muhammad Umer Riaz, Ch. Abdul Aziz, Naseem Sikandar and Niaz Ullah Niazi for Petitioners. Dr. Rana M. Shamim, Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Izhar-ul-Haque, Amin Feroze Khan, Muhammad Ab
Writ Petition No.1756 of 2010, decision dated: 29-05-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2012
RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Mian Muhammad Athar, Toufique Asif, Muhammad Umer Riaz, Ch. Abdul Aziz, Naseem Sikandar and Niaz Ullah Niazi for Petitioners. Dr. Rana M. Shamim, Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Izhar-ul-Haque, Amin Feroze Khan, Muhammad Ab
MESSRS FACO TRADING THROUGH PROPRIETOR
VS
MEMBER, CUSTOMS, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 25
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25 & 25-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods---Adoption of the "Fallback method"---Scope---Petitioners impugned valuation order passed by Director Valuation on the ground that same was not according to law---Contention of the petitioners was that customs officials were obligated to assess valuation on basis of transactional value/declared value of goods, however, if they were prepared to accept the same, then under S. 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 valuation could be determined after following the sequential method laid down in S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969, and that Customs authorities were bound to give reasons for selecting the fallback method and not the other methods of valuation---Validity---Valuation officer presently, may adopt any method provide in S. 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, however the same did not mean that valuation officer had unfettered powers to adopt any method on basis of pick and choose and had to keep in view the interest of the importer as well---Valuation officer had the discretion to follow any method provided in the subsections of S. 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 however, the method adopted must not be to the detriment of the importers and for the purpose of excluding other methods, reasons must be given---Reasons were also to be given for adopting a particular method so that it became clear to the importer that the order of valuation was in the public interest and not to his detriment---Under S. 25(9) Customs Act, 1969 criteria had been given to adopt the "fall back method" and if the said method is adopted, reasons must be given as to why customs value could not be determined under the other methods---Reasons given, in the present case, for the adoption of the "fall back method" were in violation of S. 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 as they were based on presumption as prices taken into consideration were taken from the internet and no reasons were given as to how value of goods could not be determined under any other methods given in S. 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 that made recourse to S. 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492