ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-4291 of 2018

___________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

Priority Case:

1. For hearing of CMA No.19330/2018.

2. For hearing of main case.

(Notice issued)

(P/W comments filed by respondent No.5 Adv.)

(P/W comments filed by respondent No.2)

-----------

1^st November 2019

Mr. Aqeel Ahmed Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Ms. Masooda Siraj, Advocate for Respondents No.1&5.

Dr. Shahnawaz, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Ms. Lubna Pervez, D.A.G.

-*-*-*-*-*-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy agitated through instant petition has already been decided by a Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Director General Customs Valuation v. Al-Ameen Cera (PTCL 2018 CL 636), whereby, it has been held that the Director General Valuation has no authority to enhance the valuation under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, while exercising powers under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, and has set aside the Order-in-Revision No.225/2016 dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Director General Valuation under Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, requests that the instant petition may also be allowed in the similar terms. In support of his contention, he has placed on record a copy of order dated 15.03.2019 passed by this Court in C.P. No.D-7110/2017 [M/s. Asad Corporation vs. The Director General of Customs Valuation and others].

Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute such factual and legal position, however, submit that against the aforesaid judgment of the Divisional Bench of this Court CPLA has been filed.

Since the dispute agitated through instant petition has already been decided by a Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of the Director General Customs Valuation v. Al-Ameen Cera (PTCL 2018 CL 636), accordingly, while following the ratio of above cited judgment of the Divisional Bench of this Court, instant petition stands allowed in terms of Para 23 of the above cited judgment alongwith listed application, which is reproduced herein-under for the sake of brevity and reference: -

“23. In view of the foregoing, the first two questions stand answered as follows section 25A on the one hand and s. 25D on the other are not complementary. They apply and operate in their own spheres. Insofar as s. 25A(3) is concerned, if applies only if there are conflicting customs values determined under subsection (1) and not otherwise. If such is the case, and the matter is referred to the Director General under this provision, he may either choose between the two or make his own determination, and it would be “the” applicable customs value”. Insofar as s. 25D is concerned, it is a revisional jurisdiction. It can only be invoked by a revision petition i.e. is not exercisable by the Director General on his own motion. Furthermore, it applied only if, there is a customs value determined under s. 25A by either the Director Valuation or the Collector of Customs. The jurisdiction being revisional what the Director General is concerned with is whether the customs value has been determined in accordance with law. If the answer is in the affirmative, the value is affirmed. It the answer is in the negative, then the customs value must be set aside, thus opening the way for a determination afresh under s. 25A(1) by the Director Valuation or the Collector of Customs, as the case may be. The Director General cannot substitute his own determination either by way of modification or a purported “fresh” determination or otherwise, it necessarily follows that when the Director General is exercising his jurisdiction under s. 25D there can be no question of any enhancement of the customs value as determined under s. 25A(1).”

J U D G E