ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS and 3 others vs Messrs LINK
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a customs valuation assessment imposed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The respondent-company had imported copper wire from Taiwan, but customs authorities assessed the value based on the price of similar goods originating from Japan and Poland, effectively doubling the valuation. The High Court accepted the respondent's writ petition, holding that the respondent's original valuation should be accepted. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that under Sections 25 and 30 of the Customs Act, the valuation should be based on the price fetched in an open market sale between independent buyers and sellers in the country of export. The petitioners contended that if the valuation methodology was flawed, the High Court should have remanded the matter to the customs authorities for reassessment rather than setting aside the order entirely. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, in the circumstances, the High Court should have remanded the case to the customs authority for proper valuation.
- Whether the High Court should remand a case to the customs authority when the valuation methodology is found to be legally flawed?
- Does the Customs Act require the normal price of imported goods to be determined based on the price of goods from the country of export rather than goods of other origins?
- Is the valuation of imported goods under the Customs Act to be assessed based on a sale in the open market between a buyer and seller independent of each other?
- Section 25, Customs Act 1969
- Section 30, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 9-4-1988 whereby writ petition of the respondent-company was accepted as against the demand of Assistant Collector of Customs etc. Petitioners.
2. ' The brief facts are that the respondent imported some consignments of copper wire from a company in Taiwan. The consignments were cleared under two bills of entry. The respondent valued the goods under the aforesaid two bills of entry separately but the Assistant Collector Customs Lahore petitioner assessed the normal price of the goods covered under the said two bills of entry instead of the price of copper wires manufactured in Taiwan, on the basis of the price of such wires of Japanese and Polish origin. As a result the price covered in both the bills of entry was enhanced to almost double. Being aggrieved by the said orders the respondent filed appeals which were also dismissed. Then his revisions were also dismissed by a joint order of the Central Board of Revenue but his writ petition was accepted and it was held that the valuation of the goods as fixed by the respondent should be accepted. Hence the present petition.
3. ' It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners before us that the case is governed by sections 25 and 30 of the Customs Act. Under section 25 of the Customs Act the value of the imported goods is to be assessed at the price which they would fetch on the date referred to in section 30 of the Customs Act ' on a sale in open market between a buyer and a seller independently of each other A perusal of these provisions of law indicate that while working out the price the seller in the country of export and not an independent seller of equivalent goods located in any other country should be considered. In the instant I A case it was submitted that if the normal price had been worked out on the basis of some goods exported by Japanese and Polish exporters instead of working it out from independent exporters located in Taiwan, the High Court could have remanded the case to the petitioner No,1 by giving an opportunity to him to work out price on that basis, Such opportunity was not given. Learned counsel cited PLD 1959 SC 364 (Messrs Eastern Rice Syndicate v. Central Board of Revenue, Finance Ministry Government of Pakistan and others) in support of his reasoning.
4. After hearing learned counsel leave is granted to examine inter alia the question as to whether in the 'circumstances of the case it should have been remanded or not to petitioner No,1 . The respondent to furnish a bank guarantee for the difference of amount that is in dispute within one month as directed by earlier order of this Court dated 5 July, 1988.