KARACHI: Director General Customs Valuation has rejected the petition filed by M/s Talha Corporation and others to determine values of industrial roller chains afresh.
M/s Talha Corporation and others had approached the Director General Customs Valuation Surayya Ahmed Butt requesting to annul Valuation Ruling No.1268/2018 (roller chains) and re-determine the customs values of the goods on the basis if values of raw material as per transaction values after giving proper and fair opportunity of being heard to all stakeholders on the basis of direct evidence in hand.
The petitioners submitted that Valuation Ruling No.641/2014 was in field with roller chains at the rate of $1.0/kg and it was accepted by importers even it was higher than the actual transaction value of $0.80/kg. Subsequently, Directorate of Customs Valuation issed Valuation Ruling No.1268/2018 determining customs values of industrial roller chains at $2.15/kg to $4.5/kg.
The main thrust of importers’ arguments was that the Valuation Department did not follow the valuation methods properly and also objected to the market inquiry conducted by the department and stated that the values determined vide impugned Valuation Ruling in respect of Roller Chains do not reflect the prevalent market prices. They insisted on accepting their declared values as correct transaction value; however, the documentary evidence produced by them failed to substantiate their contention.
On the other hand, the departmental representative explained in detail the valuation methodologies adopted by them to arrive at the Customs values determined vide the impugned Valuation Ruling.
After listening to the detailed discussions/arguments of respondents and perusal of the case record; Director General Customs Valuation Surayya Ahmed Butt concluded that the department had duly taken the stakeholders on board while issuing the impugned Valuation Ruling. They were given sufficient time and opportunity to give their inputs including documentary proof/evidence to substantiate their transaction value but the documentary evidence produced by them was not sufficient to defend their claim.
Director General held the revision petition not tenable and merits no consideration.