Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 25,25A,25D,80

Law: Customs Rules, 2001

Section: Rr.107(a),110,113,117,118,438

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -Ss. 25, 25-A, 25-D & 80-Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 107(a), 110, 113, 117, 118 & 438-Valuation Ruling-Determination of customs value of goods-Director, Directorate General of Valuation, was not empowered to fix the value of imported goods through Valuation Ruling under S.25-A(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 as value of the imported goods had to be determined by Customs Authorities under S.25 of the said Act and it was the Federal Board of Revenue to issue a notification in that regard-No deviation from the notified jurisdiction could be made-If an action had been taken or order had been passed without having competency under the respective provisions of law, same was to be declared illegal and without jurisdiction-Deputy Director, Directorate of Valuation, had been appointed under provisions of S-3(d) of the Customs Act, 1969 and had been delegated powers through notification for assisting the Director in determination of value of goods under the provisions of S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969- Director had issued Valuation Ruling in substitution of VDB letter which itself was without lawful authority and was void ab initio-If the initial order/letter was ab intio void, the superstructure built thereupon, no matter how strong it might be had to crumble down-Director, Directorate of Valuation in the solitary meeting, which was attended by only one person, determined the value of the imported goods, which exercise was not valid-Director had no mandate to associate importer of his choice or manufacturer for determination of value of the imported goods-Any Ruling, issued with the association of specific person or importer/manufacturer, was void ab initio and could not be termed or treated as valid document within the meaning of S.25 of Customs Act, 1969-Director, Directorate of Valuation had not followed the provisions of S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969, in letter and spirit while determining the value of imported goods-Department had desired that the importer should pay excessive duty and taxes as against his competitor of Chinese origin goods-Said attitude negated the fair competition, and created monopoly which was an infringement of…

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