Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 11 2019 SLD 11 2019 PTD 36 (2019) 119 TAX 127
Customs Appellate Tribunal
Customs Appeal No. K-24 of 2016, decision Dated: 01-04-2018, hearing Date : 15-03-2018
MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) MUHAMMAD NAZIM SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)
Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellant. Shahdad Mari, Appraiser, P.A. for
Respondents.

M/S I.T. IMPEX, KARACHI

VS

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 25,25A,25D

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -Ss. 25, 25-A & 25-D-Valuation Ruling-Determination of customs value of goods-Value of imported goods, had to be determined by the Customs Authorities under S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969-Director, Directorate General of valuation, was not empowered to fix the value of imported goods through Ruling in exercise of power vested under S.25-A(1) of the Customs Act, 1969; Board was to issue a notification on the subject-If a mandatory condition for exercise of jurisdiction was not fulfilled, the entire proceedings, would become illegal and suffering from want of jurisdiction-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-Goods of the importer, in the present case, were assessed on declared value till the issuance of impugned Ruling and there was no cause available with the Director of the Directorate of Valuation to issue fresh Ruling as the facts and circumstances remained the same and no surge in import was notified in the subsequent period- Representative of the department, had failed to negate the argument of the importer-Provisions of S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969 were to be followed in sequential manner barring certain exceptional cases where massive group under invoices was rampant, which was not visible in the present case-Resort to' subsequent method was not permissible without any exception that was without exhausting the sequence indicated in S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969 as it would annihilate and terminate the spirit and essence of the transactions value, which in the first instance had to be established as colourable and tainted- Valuation Ruling was coram non judice, ab initio void and of no legal effect-Order-in-Revision passed by Director General of valuation was set aside, in circumstances, Mansab Ali's case PLD 1971 SC 124; Chittaranjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Staff Union PLD 1971 SC 197; Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236; Messrs Shahid Impex v. Director General of Valuation 2014 PTD (Trib.) 674; Messrs AFU International v. Director General of Valuation 2016 PTD (Trib.) 1305; Rehan Omer v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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