Directorate General Customs Valuation strikes down increase in customs values of Indonesia origin uncoated offset paper

KARACHI: The Directorate General of Customs Valuation has set aside the corrigendum dated September 18, 2013 to Valuation Ruling No. 577/2013 that increased the customs values of uncoated offset paper of Indonesia origin from $0.74.KG to $0.79/KG.
The Directorate General set aside the amendment to the Valuation Ruling and remanded it back to the Director of Customs Valuation for deciding it afresh on merit and in accordance with law and that too after fairly hearing the importers.
M/s Hamdam Paper Products Pvt. Ltd had submitted a review application against the above mentioned amendment/corrigendum to the Valuation Ruling No.577/2013.
That the applicant submitted that Director of Valuation within 12 days of Valuation Ruling 577/2013 enhanced the customs values of Indonesian origin goods arbitrarily behind back of the stakeholders in absence of evidence, show cause notice or proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing.
Moreover, the proceedings for enhancement of the customs values of Indonesian origin goods fixed in the said valuation ruling have been done beyond the scope of mandatory law contained under Section 25, 25A of Customs Act, 1969.
The Directorate after hearing the rival parties noted that scrutiny of record reveals that the applicant was not heard by the Director Valuati9n while issuing impugned corrigendum/amendment.
It is now well settled principle of law that a subject whose rights are being affected must be given an adequate opportunity to defend his case.
The Director Valuation enhanced the customs value of uncoated offset paper of Indonesian origin from $0.74/KG to $0.79/KG through the amendment.
The Directorate General in its order noted that the impugned corrigendum was issued without quoting relevant sub-section of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 this making it legally not sustainable.
Besides, the customs values of the subject goods were enhanced at the back of importers/stakeholders and without providing them opportunity to be heard.
The Directorate General set aside the impugned corrigendum/amendment and remanded it back to be decided afresh.
Being identical on facts and law points, the Directorate General disposed of 47 similar review applications to the extent of the impugned corrigendum only.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.