| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1494 2019 SLD 1494 2019 SCMR 1126 2019 PTD 1776 2019 PTCL 670 (2019) 120 TAX 440 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 251 of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 14-05-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 03.01.2014 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Special Customs Reference Application No. 69 of 2010)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Raja Zafar Khaliq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court
Civil Appeal No. 251 of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 14-05-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 03.01.2014 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Special Customs Reference Application No. 69 of 2010)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Raja M. Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Raja Zafar Khaliq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
VS
MESSRS FAISAL ENTERPRISES
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 25(1),25(5),25(6),25(7),25(8),25(9)
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 25(5)---Value of imported goods---Actual transaction value as reflected in the invoices, Letter of Credit and Goods Declaration---Actual transaction value of each of the two imported consignments was USD 175 and USD 180 per metric ton respectively, which was duly reflected in the Letter of Credit and the Goods Declaration filed at the time of in-bonding of goods---Importer contended that the goods at the time of in-bonding upon inspection were found to be of secondary quality instead of prime quality and as similar goods of secondary quality imported from the same country of origin and shipped on the same ship were assessed at USD 157 per metric ton, hence the goods were to be assessed under S. 25(5) of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act') at USD 157 per metric ton---Held, that when the goods without any difficulty could be assessed on the basis of the transaction value under subsection (1) of S. 25 of the Act i.e. the price actually paid or payable for the goods sold for export to Pakistan, then the question of invoking subsection (5) of S. 25 did not arise at all---Only in circumstances when the goods could not be assessed on transaction value then they were to be assessed on the basis of the value of identical goods sold for export to Pakistan at about the same time at which the goods were being valued under subsection (5) of S. 25---In the present case it was not the case of the importer that the goods were not the same as were originally ordered, which resulted in raising a claim with foreign supplier for refund of the differential amount---Hence, the two consignments imported by the importer were liable to be assessed at the undisputed transaction value reflected in the invoices, the Letter of Credits and the Goods Declarations that were filed at the time of arrival of goods, which was admittedly USD 175 and USD 180 per metric ton respectively. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: FAISAL ARAB, J.--- The respondent imported two consignments of HR Steel Sheets of prime quality from Ukraine at a price of USD 175 and USD 180 per metric ton respectively. These actual transaction values were duly reflected in the invoices, the Letter 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