SHC orders Valuation Officer to be in attendance on Oct 01

KARACHI: Hearing a constitution petition against non release of an imported consignment provisionally over Valuation dispute, a Customs Appellate bench of High Court of Sind (SHC) comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan on Tuesday ordered officer concerned of Valuation Department, Pakistan Customs to be in attendance on Oct 01, the next date of hearing.

The bench earlier heard Rana Sakhavat Advocate appearing for Messers Interlink Corporation. The counsel said it has impugned an order passed by Deputy Collector, Model Custom Collectorate, Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim who declined a request for provision release under section 81 of the Custom Act 1967.

Rana Sakhavat further contended that DC has taken the pretest that petitioner has filed review petition before the Director General Valuation, whereas in terms of Section 25A (4), unless Valuation Ruling is revised or rescinded by the competent authority, such request of petitioner cannot be entertained.

The counsel contended that impugned order is patently illegal and without lawful authority, based on misinterpretation of statutory provisions. It was further contended that an aggrieved party can file a review petition before the DG Valuation within 30 days but this is no bar to file an application for provisional release subject to securing of disputed amount before the Collectorate concerned.till decision by the DG Valuation. An application under section 25A can also be filed after expiry of ninety days from the date of issuance of Valuation Ruling with a request for issuance of fresh Valuation Ruling and during pendency of this application, request for provisional release is entertain-able making the Respondents under legal obligation to pass appropriate orders.

The bench after hearing initial arguments held that point raised needs consideration. It ordered issuance of pre-admission notices to the respondents for Oct 01 while ordering the officer concerned that he “shall be in attendance” on next date of hearing.

The bench also sought comments by next date of hearing.with advance copy to the petitioner side.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.