Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 25, 25A, 195, 179(2), 80

Form No: HCJD/C-121. ORDER SHEET.     Babar Sattar, J:- This reference arises from a judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) dated 06.07.2017. The questions of law framed for our consideration were recorded in order dated 14.01.2020, as follows: Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in its understanding of Section 25 and Section 25-A and the law subsequently settled in the Sadia Jabbar Case by the Sindh High Court and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court cited as 2012 SCMR 617 i.e. Valuation Advices or Rulings issued or determined subsequent to import cannot take the place of value determined under Section 25 or 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 i.e. whether goods imported on 07.06.2014 can be ascribed value as determined on 11.06.2014 i.e. post import   Whether, prima facie, disputes of valuation, can be termed disputes of mis-declaration and under valuation, when the respondents themselves at the time of import had not determined value for the disputed goods in question under Section 25-A and whether the appellant can be burdened for lacunas and errors in ascribing value under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 which is the sole duty of the Customs Department?   Whether, the Tribunal has erred in not taking notice of the ground that, in terms of Section 179 (2) read with Section 6 of the Customs Act, a notification to be notified in the official gazette is to be issued by the Board. No such notification was issued hence whether the same is ultra vires of the Customs Act, 1969?   Whether respondent No.5 filed an application for re-opening the case when the right forum for the filing of the appeal was the Appellate Tribunal. The respondent No.5 illegally entertained the application and ordered the reopening of the case, which is not sustainable. Further it amounts to filing an appeal before the respondent No.5, when as per law the case could be re-opened under Section 195 of the Customs Act by respondent No.5 on its own after perusing the copy of the judgment which is usually endorsed to respondent No.5?   We propose to decide this reference only in terms of the fourth question of law, which…