AZMAT BROS. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑ ‑The petitioner has challenged in this petition the determination of normal price of an imported consignment of unwrought plastic by the Customs Authorities under section 25 of the Customs Act 1969. The goods were imported by the petitioner from Hungary during the shipping period 1984‑85. The bill of entry for home consumption in respect of consignment was submitted on 12‑1‑1985. It is an admitted position that in the invoice submitted by the petitioner the value of unwrought plastic sheet in rolls imported by the petitioner was declared as 90 cents per meter C & F. However, the Customs Authority did not accept the price declared in the invoice as normal price of the consignment and assessed the same at the rate of U.S. 1.50 per meter. The endorsement on the B/F showing assessment of price at U.S.$ 1.50 does not indicate that before determining the same the petitioner was either issued any notice or was heard and shown the material used by the Customs Authorities in determination the C & F value at U.S. $ 1.50. When this case came up for hearing before us on 10‑10‑1981 we pointed out to the learned Standing Counsel who represented the respondent m the case that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was either heard or shown the material used by the Customs Authority in determining the C & F value of consignment of unwrought plastic. The learned Standing counsel requested for adjournment until today to enable him to produce in Court the file containing the proceedings of the case of the petitioner. Mr. Abdul Sattar, the learned counsel for the respondent has appeared today in the case alongwith Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and has produced before us the file containing the papers relating to the case of petitioner. There is nothing in the file to show that the petitioner was either heard or was shown the material on the basis of which the price was determined by the respondent under section 25 of the Customs Act at U.S. 1.50 as against the declared invoice value of U.S. $ 90. In the case of Indus Auto Mobile v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1988 Kar. 99 a Division Bench of this Court while discussing the scope of section 25 of Customs Act observed as follows:‑

2. "In our view, the export price of the country of origin may be a relevant factor with the other factors for arriving at the correct normal price but an importer cannot insist that the normal price in terms of section 25 should be determined solely on the basis of the export price which he has paid in the country of origin.

8. From the above cited cases, it is evident that there seems to be judicial consensus that in case the customs authorities want to assess certain prices as the normal price, on the basis of some material, in terms of section 25 read with section 30 of the Act other than what has been declared by importer, are bound to show such material to the importer in order to provide him an opportunity to meet the same."

3. We accordingly declare that the assessment of C & F price of consignment by the respondent at U.S. $ 1.50 is without lawful authority. The respondents are directed to redetermine the price in accordance with the law after showing the material used by them to the petitioner and after allowing them I proper opportunity of hearing as well as producing evidence in rebuttal if necessary. There will be no order as to costs. As the consignment was imported in the year 1985, the respondents are further directed to decide the case of petitioner within three months from today.

4. H.B.T./A‑474/K Petition accepted/order accordingly.