MOON CORPORATION through Proprietor vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, through Chairman, Islamabad and 3 others
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a constitutional petition filed by Moon Corporation against the Central Board of Revenue and others, challenging a notice dated 22-5-2001 issued by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner had imported pigments declaring a value of US $ 1.50 per Kg in the bill of entry. Respondent No. 3 issued a notice requiring the petitioner to clear the goods based on a higher value of US $ 3.50 per Kg, or alternatively face acquisition of the goods upon payment of the declared value plus a 5 percent surcharge. The core legal question was whether the impugned notice valuing the imported goods and offering an option to acquire them was lawful under customs laws and whether constitutional jurisdiction should be invoked despite available statutory remedies. The court held that the impugned order was prima facie fair and in accordance with section 25 of the Customs Act, and that the petitioner had adequate alternate appellate and revisional remedies under the statute. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition in limine, laying down the principle that constitutional petitions will not ordinarily be entertained against customs valuation notices where statutory remedies before the departmental hierarchy and tribunal are available.
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a notice determining the valuation of imported goods under the Customs Act 1969?
- Does an importer have an adequate alternate remedy under the Customs Act 1969 to challenge valuation orders?
- Can authorities acquire imported goods upon payment of the declared value plus a percentage in the event of failure to pay duty on the assessed value?
- Section 25, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
Granted.
2. The petitioner had imported certain quantities of pigments of various colour and the price of US $ 1.50 per Kg. Was declared in the bill of entry. The goods arrived in April, 2001 and on 22-5-2001 the Respondent No,3 addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that he had received offers for purchase of the same pigments at the rate of US $ 3.50 per Kg. Alongwith customs duty and other tax. Accordingly the Respondent No,3 notified to the petitioner to clear the goods upon payment of duty on the basis of value at the rate of US $ 3.50 per Kg. And stated that in the event of failure to pay within seven days the goods would be taken over on payment of value declared in the bill of entry and an amount equal to 5% of such declared value. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the aforesaid order/notice, dated 22-5-2001.
' After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length we are of the view that prima facie the order is quite fair and in accordance with sprit of section 25 of the Customs Act. The petitioner was given the option of getting the goods released after payment of duty according to the value determined by Respondent No,3 under section 25 of the Customs Act and only in the event of failure to do so the right to acquire the goods on payment of value declared in the bill .Of entry together with an extra amount of 5% was exercised. In any event, even if the order suffers from any illegalities A the petitioners could always seek appellate and revisional remedies in the hierarchy in the Tribunal established under the Customs Act. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the petition in limine. The observations made above, however, are only tentative and will not prejudice the petitioner in case he chooses to approach any appropriate forum for redress. The petitioner will also be free to approach the concerned authorities and seek extension of time for compliance of the impugned order, if he so desires.
Cited by 6 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASIM ARMAN vs COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) and 3 others 2016 PTD 163
- Muhammad Asim Arman. vs Collectorate of Customs (Preventive) and 3 2016 PTD 163, PTCL 2016 CL. 355
- Messrs BINACO TRADERS through Proprietor vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2006 PTD 1491
- M/S. Binaco Traders vs Federation Of Pakistan And 3 Other PTCL 2006 CL. 540
- Messrs PAKISTAN DRY BATTERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION through Vice-Chairman Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2006 PTD 674
- Messrs PAKISTAN DRY BATTERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION through Vice-Chairman and another vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 9 others 2006 PTD 1119