' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.-The appellant imported a consignment of kitchenware and filed Bill of Entry No, 1935, dated 27-6-2001 with Dry Port, Faisalabad. The value of the consignment was disclosed at US $ 2833.90 and its weight in the packing invoice, bill of lading as well as bill of entry at 1721 Kgs.
2. On receipt of information regarding misdeclaration of weight, the consignment was got re- weighed and was found excessive by 2538 Kgs.
3. Thereupon the appellant was served with a show-cause notice and on proper adjudication proceedings an Order-in-Original was recorded on T-1-0-2002 by an Additional Collector of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Adjudication), Faisalabad. Through that order the charges framed in show-cause notice were found to have been established and therefore, the imported goods were confiscated under section 156(1)(14) of Customs Act, 1969. However, an option was given to the importer to redeem the same on payment of all leviable duties and taxes and a fine equal to 30% of the Customs value determined under section 181.
4. The appellant failed before the Tribunal. By way of the impugned order, dated 23-12-2002 the learned Tribunal found that since the falsity of the particulars declared in the documents like invoice, bill of entry and bill of lading etc., had been established and since the appellant failed to support the genuineness of the declared value, the alternate adopted by the Assessing Officer to value the goods on the basis of value of goods of same origin by Duty Free Shop Ltd. Was the best alternate. Learned Members of the Tribunal were also of the view that further steps taken in this case by visit to internet and local markets which supported the import price of Duty Free Shop was in line with the spirit envisaged in section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Valuation Rules detailed in Chapter-IX of the Customs Rules, 2001. The Order-in-Original was, therefore, maintained.
Hence this further appeal.
5. According to the appellant the impugned order of the Tribunal gives rise to the following questions of law to be considered and answered by this Court:--
(a) "Whether learned Appellate Tribunal has not fallen in error to hold that neither the transaction value in terms of section 25(1) of Customs Act, 1969 was required to be accepted nor department was required to follow the procedure prescribed under sub-sections (5), (6), (7) (8) and (9) of section 25 as difference of more than 147% in declared weight was found after examination, assessm ent and payment of duties/taxes whereas actual weight was ascertained in initial examination and earlier assessme nt was made thereon as is evident from the perusal of examination report recorded on the back of bill of B entry by the Examining Officer?
(b) Whether learned Appellate Tribunal has erred in law to hold that since there was difference in weight, therefore, requirement of subsection (4) of section 25 of Customs Act, 1969 and Rule 109 Of Customs Rules, 2001 was not required to be met while making assessment in this case?
(c) Whether learned Appellate Tribunal fallen in error of law to hold that the value stood changed on detection of difference in weight whereas the value and assessment was to be made on the basis of number of articles and not weight?
(d) Whether the impugned judgment, dated 23-12-2002 is not a result of misreading and 'non- reading of evidence as well as record as learned Appellate Tribunal held that Bill of Entry No,10738, dated 20-6-2001 of Lahore Dry Port showing assessment at unit price of US $ 8 set was neither in respect of identical goods of same origin nor from same shipper and same was the position of Bill of Entry No,978, dated 2-4-2001 of Faisalabad Dry Port although the goods of Bill of Entry No,10738 were imported after few days of arrival of consignment of appellant during the year, 2002 and not in 2001 and pertained to branded goods (Tefal) of France origin (same region) and same period whereas the goods of appellant are unbranded having cheaper price,
(e) Whether learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law to hold that department was justified to evaluate the goods of appellant on the basis of import of identical goods of same origin by Duty Free Shop Ltd. Whereas document of import but was a stock list which cannot be made basis for assessm ent of imported goods on promulgation of section 25 of Customs Act,, 1969 and Customs Rules, 2001?"
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that the questions as framed are more in nature of arguments rather than posing a legal controversy. The appellant all along attempted to down play the factum of his having misdeclared the weight of the consignment. In any case the valuation of goods by the Customs Authorities after having found the documents filed by the appellant to be unworthy of any credit hardly gives rise to a question of law to be considered by this Court. The issue if the identical goods taken into consideration for valuation of the consignment in question were not so. Identical is again not a question of law. Also the question if the goods relied upon by the importer were more identical than those considered by the Customs Department is not a question of law to be considered by this Court under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969.
7. In limine.