SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved bv the levy of customs duty at the rate of U.S. Dollar 1425 per metric ton in respect of an assignment of 350 metric tons of Zinc Ingots imported from USSR. According to the petitioner, customs duty ought to have been charged at the rate of U.S. Dollar 1189 per metric ton in terms of the invoice value of the goods.
2. The respondents on the other hand have contended that the goods were chargeable of customs duty in terms of the F&F value determined under Section 25-B of the Customs Act at the rate of U.S. Dollar 1425 per metric ton.
3. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance, attempted to urge that the valuation effected by the respondents had no nexus with transaction value of the imported goods in terms of Section 25 of the Customs Act. In this context, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, seem to be correct in asserting that the valuation was determined not under Section 25 but under Section 25-B of the Customs Act which at the relevant time enabled the respondent No. 3 or an officer authorized by it to fix the value at such rate as he deem to be fit notwithstanding anything contained in Section 25. In view of the stipulation that Section 25-B was required to operate notwithstanding anything contained in Section 25, we are afraid that strict proof of nexus with the transaction value under Section 25 was not necessary. Indeed the discretion under Section 25-B was required to be exercised reasonably but there is no allegation that the fixation of value was effected in a perverse or mala fide manner.
4. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq alternatively argued that valuation under Section 25-B would operate only if the rate determined were published in the official Gazette and there was no proof of such publication. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has however, produced before us a copy of Gazette dated lst November, 1992, containing S.R.O. 227 (KE) /92, wherein the impugned value has been fixed and is required to take effect from lst, November, 1992.
Admittedly the bill of entry were filed on 26th November, 1992, and therefore, the notification was clearly applicable to the imported goods.
5. In view of the above we find no substance in this petition and are constrained to dismiss the same.