Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32,32(1)(2),32(3),79(1),196(5)

ORDER MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR JUSTICE:---.--- Through this reference application, the Applicant has impugned Judgment dated 05.06.2017, passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, in Customs Appeals Nos.K-2056/2016 and K-2165/2016 proposing the following questions of law, which according to the applicant purportedly arise out of the order of the Tribunal:- i. Whether learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law by not considering that the respondent has mis-declared the description and classification of the goods under PCT heading 8483.6099 instead of under PCT heading 8483.6092? ii. Whether to learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law by not considering the documentary evidence (catalog/literature scanned) confirming that the imported goods are Universal Joints of various sizes/types instead of cross for Agriculture rotavator? iii. Whether the assessable value of imported item is US$ 2.5/kg as per valuation Ruling No.661/2014 dated 2905.2014? iv. Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law by not considering that it is case of deliberate mis-statement and submission of fake documents as such not considering of amended provisions of Section 79(1) and 32(1)(2) & (3) of the Customs Act, 1969? 2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has read out the Judgment and submits that the Appellate Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant and by deciding the issue in favour of the respondent, as according to the learned Counsel due to wrong classification of the goods in question, the respondent had made an attempt to evade duty and taxes; warranting an action in terms of section 32 of the Customs Act 1969. He has prayed for answering the questions in favor of the Applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned Judgment and submits that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal as the classification of the goods in question has been determined pursuant to a factual probe; hence, the Reference application is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. It appears that the Respondent imported a consignment of cross for agriculture rotavator and claimed…

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