KARACHI: The Director General, Customs Valuation, Samaira Nazir Khan rejected revision petitions against Valuation Ruling (VR) 775/2015 December 1, 2015.
The revision petitions was filed by M/s Shamim Enterprises and others under section 25-D of the Customs Act 1969 against custom value of baby diapers from China, vide Valuation Ruling no 775/2015 issued by Director, Customs Valuation Karachi.
The petitioners maintained that it was the leading importers of the baby diapers from China on regular basis. It maintained that the VR 775/2015 aggrieved them as the respondent has re-determined the value of the impugned goods vide VR 775/2015 without considering the transactional value of the applicant under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 and revised the value under Section 25(7) of the Customs Act 1969.
It was contended by the petitioners that basis of the revision was only confined on the basis of the computed value method as laid down under Section 25(7) of the Customs Act 1969, without giving the cogent and plausible reason to reject the transactional value of the applicant.
The petitioners also contended that respondent did not consider the Letter of Credit documents, commercial invoices, Bill of Lading of the exporter clearly showing that the transactional value of the baby diapers from China origin was $2 per kilogrammes.
The respondent Director Customs Valuation in his reply submitted that several meetings were held with stakeholders and as usual the manufacturer were of the opinion that to uplift the value as raw material prices have increased on contrary the importers insisted upon that the downward trend in prices due to fall in oil prices.
Both the stakeholders could not prove their contention, thus reliance was placed on current import data under Section 25(5),(6) and (7) of the Customs Act 1969, and after detailed inquiry on the basis of evidences of physical import , market inquiry and information obtained through internet , the said values were determined.
The Director General, Customs Valuation while rejecting the revision petition held that applicant/petitioner failed to prove their case through documentary evidence and that department has proceeded as per law. Besides all legal formalities as envisaged under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 have been fulfilled, the order remarked.