Tribunal rejects review plea for ginger valuation

KARACHI: The Appellate Tribunal has rejected the revision application of an importer for reviewing the valuation ruling for ginger import.
This revision petition was filed under section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 against customs value determined for ginger vide valuation ruling No. 574/2013 dated August 20, 2013 inter alia on the following grounds, reproduced as below;
M/s Bhatti Brothers are the group of companies operating nine different sister concern firms and all are the importers of fresh ginger and importing the said goods on regular basis from China, Thailand Mayanmar and Indonesia.
The company had not call for the meeting to give views on valuation of fresh ginger. The company has drawn the attention towards the value determined vide valuation ruling No. 574/2013 of the fresh ginger of all origins $0.68/kg.
That it is never happened in the history that the value of fresh ginger of all origins are same and also it could not be, there are lots of difference in terms of quality, availability transit time.
The value of Chinese origin goods is higher than the other origin goods, due to its quality and demand in the local market.
The company requested for review under section 25-D of Customs Act 1969. The company requested for another meeting to give more evidence in this regard.
Case record has been examined. Perusal of record reveals that the petitioner was asked vide letter of even number dated December 26, 2013 and February 4, 2014 to appear for hearing fixed for December 24, 2013 and January 30, 2014 along with relevant supporting import documents but the petitioner did not bother to appear for hearing and did not attach any document with the petition. It is evident that the petitioner has failed to furnish valid and legally maintainable document like performa invoice commercial invoice bill of lading packaging list L/C, so as to enable is t o verify the truth accuracy of transaction value under section 25(1) of the Customs Act 1969. As per Rule 109 of the valuation rules issed under SRO 450(1)2001 dated June 18, 2001 (chapter X) in the absence of valid import documentation, the burden to prove correctness of transaction value shift to the importer/petitioner. Non submission of valid import documents clearly manifest that he petitioner has not come to this forum with clean hands. The petitioner who did not furnish import documents thus failed to substantiate cause of their grievance with conclusive evidence. This is indicative of the position that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the case.
In view of aforesaid factual improprieties and legal infirmities, the revision petition merits no consideration and is accordingly rejected.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.