SHC asks Customs to satisfy on mis-declaration dispute

SHC asks Customs to satisfy on mis-declaration dispute

KARACHI: An appellate bench of High Court of Sindh asked the respondent Customs officials of Directorate of Customs Intelligence (Enforcement) and MCC Appraisement West to satisfy the court about mis-declaration if same PCT (Pakistan Customs Tariff) applies to a disputed item.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Farooq Corporation which imported battery operated tricycles (assembled) while according to declaration  import consignment consisted of baby trike parts. The bench deferred hearing till today (Friday).

During examination it was found by Customs that there was a grave violation of description of goods. A dispute developed between Directorate of Customs Intelligence (Enforcement) and MCC Appraisement West over the jurisdiction and the directorate and collectorate both lodged FIR.

Today when the petition came up for hearing Ghulam ullah Sheikh advocate for Franklin Law Associates was asked about the allegation of mis-declaration of description. The counsel  informed the bench that mistake was on part of the shipper who instead of parts, loaded the assembled pieces. The Goods Declaration (GD) was filed under the same PCT heading 9503.0010 and imported items whether in parts form  (knocked down) or assembled tricycles attracts levy of custom duty and other taxes at the same rate.

The counsel further maintained that when PCT is same, no question of evasion of duty or taxes arises.

The bench after this submission by the counsel for petitioner asked the customs to justify their action if PCT heading is same and no loss to national treasure was to be caused.

As per the facts reported by Directorate of Customs Intelligence, information was received that M/s Farooq Corporation was importing baby tricycle battery operated in the garb of baby trike parts through mis-declaration of description and gross under valuation.

Monitoring was kept and a GD filed through M/s Sai Enterprises after having been cleared was assigned to gate out staff through Yellow Channel. The consignment was online blocked and upon examination was found to be containing Baby Tricycle battery operated instead of declared baby trike parts. An amount of Rs0.992 million was allegedly evaded.

The Directorate (DIT) and Collectorate (Appraisement West) are claiming jurisdiction over the case and both are reporting different facts and have lodged FIRs under Section 32(1), 32(2) and 32A.

What is your view on this ? Let us know in the comments section