Appellate Tribunal sets aside increase in customs values of ceramic & porcelain tiles |

Appellate Tribunal sets aside increase in customs values of ceramic & porcelain tiles

KARACHI: The Customs Appellate Tribunal comprising Member Technical Mohammad Nazim Saleem and Member Judicial Mohammad Nadeem Qureshi has set aside the order in revision No.225/2016 for being without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The impugned Order-in-Revision had increased the values of Chinese tiles by 12.5 percent. As many as 46 importers of ceramic & porcelain tiles covered under PCT headings 6908.9010 and 6907.9000 has approached the Tribunal that the prices of subject goods have been decreased in the international markets particularly in markets of China. The importers submitted that the department determined the values and issued the Valuation Ruling 874/2016 without adopting due process and procedure of determination of values prescribed under Section 25 of the Customs Act. Importers approached Director General Customs Valuation and the DG ordered that prices of Chinese origin tiles shall be enhanced by 12.5 percent with immediate effect. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order-in-Revision, the importers filed appeals before Tribunal. Importers submitted the impugned determination of values and valuation Ruling are arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. They contended that no proper and independent market inquiry was conducted nor any market inquiry report has been placed on record by the concerned officer which establishes that the values are arbitrary and the impugned valuation ruling as issued on the basis of no evidence. Moreover, the Order-in-Revision No. 225/2016 has been passed without giving any proper finding and without considering the submissions of the aggrieved importers and material evidence placed on record. After detailed deliberation of the case, Appellate Tribunal held the impugned order in revision No.225/2016 passed by the Director General does not have any adherence to the statutory requirements, besides being derogatory to the statutory requirements. The tribunal set aside the order-in-revision. The appeals were filed by M/s. AL-Amin Cera; M/ s. Ceramic City; M/ s. Royal Corporation; M/s Aman Enterprises; M/ s. Taimoor Trading Co; M/s. Zohaid Ali Company, M/s. Abu Yousaf Traders;  M/s. The City Tiles; M/ s. Cosmos International; M/ s. Euro Tiles & Granites; M/s. Shahji Traders; M/s. Hashim Abdullah & Co; M/s Dyna Trading company; M/s. Yaha International; M/s. Umair International; M/s. Saad International; M/ s. Ibrahim Traders; M/s N.A Mukhtar Co; M/s Butt Sons; M/s. Azeem Enterprises; M/s. M.I Sanitary Store; M/s. Hussain Traders; M/ s. Commercial Corporation; M/s. JBR Traders; M/s. Salman Sanitation Service; M/s. Al-Nafeh Trading Company; M/s Haseeb & Co; M/s Artica Ceramics; M /s. Iqbal Global Trading Co; M  s. Ayesha Enterprises; M/s. Qureshi Sons; M/s. Mehdi Tiles; M/s. Safa Corporation; M/s. Ash hub Enterprises; M/s. Carwan Cement Store; M/s Karachi Tile Home; M/ s. Javed Traders; M/s. A.S. Enterprises; M/s. H. H. Traders; M/s. Farooq Corporation; M/s. Mughal Corporation; M/s. Asiatic International; M/s. Saaz Traders; M/s. F.L Enterprises; M/s M.Y Trading Company and M/s Master Tiles & Ceramics.  
What is your view on this ? Let us know in the comments section