IBRAHIM NIZAMI STEEL WIRE INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary (Rev)/Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, FBR House Constitution Avenue, Islamabad

SARDAR AHMED HALEEMI, J .--- The petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ( "the Constitution" ) with the following relief:

2.As per contents of the instant petition, the petitioners are registered taxpayers engaged in the business of importing Steel Wire Rods from international suppliers, classifiable under Chapter 72.13 and 72.27 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff. The consignments were imported on the basis of commercial contracts and invoices reflecting the agreed transaction value. The petitioners filed Goods Declarations before the concerned Collectorates declaring the actual transaction value in terms of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. However, the respondents assessed the consignments under Valuation Ruling No.1331/2018 dated 28.09.2018 issued by the Directorate of Customs (Valuation), Karachi, in which the customs value was determined on the basis of London Metal Bulletin (LMB) prices, with additional adjustments and freight charges.

3.Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed review petitions before the Director General (Valuation), which were dismissed through Order-in-Review No.17/2019 dated 05.11.2019. The petitioners thereafter filed statutory appeals before the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, which allowed the appeals and declared the impugned Valuation Ruling and Order-in-Review to be without lawful authority and set them aside to the extent of the appellants, with directions to assess the consignments on the basis of the declared transaction value under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. Despite the said judgments having attained finality, the respondents allegedly continue to assess the consignments of the petitioners on the basis of the impugned valuation ruling.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that under the scheme of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, the primary and mandatory method for determination of customs value is the transaction value, namely the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to Pakistan; that the petitioners have provided complete documentary evidence including commercial invoices, contracts, and import documents establishing the transaction value, which could not be disregarded without lawful justification; that the respondents illegally resorted to Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 without first exhausting the methods prescribed under subsections (1) to (8) of Section 25, which is contrary to the statutory framework governing customs valuation; that the impugned Valuation Ruling No.1331/2018 is based on arbitrary assumptions, including unjustified additions to the LMB prices and the imposition of freight charges despite the fact that the goods were imported on CFR terms. Such additions are not supported by any legal or factual basis and are therefore liable to be declared illegal; the Customs Appellate Tribunal, being the competent appellate forum under the Customs Act, has already declared the impugned valuation ruling and the order-in-review to be without lawful authority and void ab initio. The Tribunal further directed the respondents to assess the goods on the basis of the transaction values declared by the appellants; that once the Tribunal has set aside the valuation ruling and its judgments have attained finality, the respondents are legally bound to implement the same. Their continued reliance on the set-aside valuation ruling amounts to acting in defiance of the law and undermining the authority of the Tribunal; that the actions of the respondents are arbitrary, unlawful, and without jurisdiction, and violate the legal rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the law; that this Court may exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to direct the respondents to implement the judgments of the Customs Appellate Tribunal and to assess and release the consignments of the petitioners on the basis of the declared transaction value in accordance with Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the reported case Kashif Feroz v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division/Chairman Ministry of Finance and another (2021 PTD 867).

5.Conversely, learned counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 opposed the instant petition and contended that the instant petition is misconceived and not maintainable under the law; that the petitioners have never declared or substantiated their actual transaction values for clearance of their consignments imported through Customs Station, Taftan due to the absence of formal banking channels with Iran, therefore, the alleged transaction values could not be authenticated; that the petitioners filed 18 Goods Declarations before the Collectorate of Appraisement, Taftan for clearance of Low Carbon Alloy Steel Wire Rod and High Carbon Steel Wire Rod during the period from 01.07.2022 to 20.12.2023 and the said consignments were assessed on the basis of prevailing LMB prices with the addition of land route freight at the rate of approximately US$ 48-50 per metric ton; that the petitioners did not raise any objection to such assessments nor did they file any review petitions regarding the addition of freight charges; that although the petitioners had previously challenged Valuation Ruling No.1331/2018 dated 28.09.2018 and Order-in-Revision No.17/2019 dated 05.11.2019 before the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, which were set aside to the extent of the appellants, the consignments imported through Collectorate of Appraisement, Taftan relate to Alloy Steel Wire Rod (Low and High Carbon), whereas the said Valuation Ruling pertains to Iron or Non-Alloy Steel Wire Rods; therefore, the same is not applicable to the goods imported through the said Collectorate; that the petitioners have already approached this Court regarding acceptance of their declared transaction values for imports from Iran. However, due to the absence of normal banking channels with Iran, the petitioners are unable to substantiate their transaction values. It was further submitted that in compliance with the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court, future consignments of the petitioners imported through the Collectorate shall be assessed provisionally under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969; that the grievance raised by the petitioners essentially pertains to the Directorate General of Customs (Valuation), Karachi and the Collectorates at Karachi ports where the valuation ruling was originally issued and implemented, therefore prayed that the instant petition, being out of context before this Court, is liable to be dismissed.

6.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 also opposed the instant petition and adopted, in substance, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 and contended that the petition is not maintainable in the present form and is based upon a misconceived interpretation of the factual and legal position; that the imports referred to by the petitioners were processed at different customs stations and under separate administrative jurisdictions, therefore, the directions sought by the petitioners cannot be uniformly enforced against Respondent No.3 without examining the specific facts relating to consignments cleared through the Collectorate of Customs MCC Appraisement, Gwadar; that the petitioners have failed to establish that the consignments allegedly imported through the jurisdiction of Respondent No.3 were identical to those which were the subject matter of the appeals decided by the Customs Appellate Tribunal. The judgments of the learned Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, were passed in the peculiar facts of those cases and were confined only to the appellants and the specific goods involved therein, therefore, the petitioners cannot seek a blanket direction for implementation of the said judgments in respect of all present and future consignments irrespective of the nature, classification, and circumstances of import; that in cases where the declared transaction value cannot be properly verified or authenticated, the customs authorities are legally empowered under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 to determine the customs value by applying alternative methods as provided under the law. In the present case, the petitioners allegedly imported goods through land routes from Iran, where normal banking channels are unavailable, thereby making it difficult for the customs authorities to verify the authenticity of the declared transaction value using standard documentary evidence, such as banking instruments or remittance records. In such circumstances, the customs authorities were justified in relying upon internationally recognized price indicators and available import data for the purpose of assessment; that the petitioners have adequate and efficacious alternate remedies available under the Customs Act, 1969, including the remedies of review and appeal against any assessment order, which they have not exhausted in respect of the consignments in question; that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as a substitute for statutory remedies provided under the special law, therefore the instant constitutional petition, being premature, misconceived, and not maintainable in law, is liable to be dismissed.

7.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,

8.Perusal of record reveals that the petitioners are regular importers of "Steel Wire Rods" from worldwide resources, including Iran. Initially, the petitioners imported a consignment of Low and High-carbon Alloy Steel Wire Rod via the Collectorate of Taftan in 2022. The concerned Customs Collectorate assessed the consignment based on value Ruling No.1331/2018 dated 28.09.2018, issued by the Directorate of Customs (Valuation) Karachi, whereby, the customs value of the consignment was determined based on LMB price with additional adjustment and freight charges, however, the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Bench-III, Karachi vide judgments dated 03.09.2020 and 06.09.2022 set aside the impugned Valuation Ruling under Section 25A(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 (" the Act, 1969" ) to the extent of the petitioners with the directions to assessed the petitioners' consignment at actual transaction value under Section 25A of the Act, 1969, which order has attained finality. The concerned Customs authorities had implemented the said judgments in letter and spirit. It is matter of record that the petitioner No.1 had filed 18 GDS of low and high carbon alloy steel wire rod imported consignment during the years 2022-2023, which were determined on the basis of LMB with additional freight @ 48 USD per metric ton, as the petitioner No.1 failed to substantiate the transactional value through banking channel with Iran and the same assessment remained unchallenged.

9.In the present petition, the petitioners are seeking implementation of judgments dated 03.09.2020 and 06.09.2022 passed by the respective learned Customs Tribunals to assess the petitioners' all future imported consignments on actual transaction value under section 25(1) of the Act, 1969. As per the record, the petitioners have not appended documentary evidence, including fresh GDS, commercial invoices, contracts, and import documents, which prima facie may establish that the official respondents had made any assessment. Under the Act of 1969, the concerned Customs authorities are under legal obligations to verify the authenticity of declared imported consignments through standard documentary evidence, i.e., backing instruments or remittance records. In the absence of such documents, the Customs authorities relied on internationally recognized price indicators and available import data of assessed consignments. The discretion in writ jurisdiction cannot be used in matters of past and closed transactions. It is well settled that a judgment is personam binds only the parties to the particular relief and transaction; however, where the lis relates to a past and closed transaction, the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen the matter. The petitioners must exhaust the prescribed remedies provided under the Act, 1969, and the assessment of imported consignments will be based on a fresh assessment by the concerned authorities.

10.Moreover, the petitioners have adequate and efficacious remedies provided under the Act, 1969 including review and appeal against the fresh assessment order; as such, the instant petition is not maintainable.

The judgments referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

For the above reasons, Constitutional Petition No.1993 of 2023, being bereft of merits, is dismissed.

UN/12/Bal Petition dismissed.