ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.- This is an appeal under the provisions of Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 against an order in appeal bearing No. 7(464)CUS/IB/2000, dated 29.1.2002 passed by the Customs, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad, against an Order-in-Original No. 5/99, da^ed 29.1.1999 passed by the Deputy Collector Customs, Dry Port, Rawalpindi.
2. Precisely the matter relates to the charging of custom duty of "Green Tea" imported from Vietnam.
3. The importer on the basis of the import invoice declared the amount per unit at US$ 1.25/kg. The goods were provisionally released under the provisions of Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 but the department while releasing the goods obtained a Bank guarantee from the appellant for safeguarding the department's interest against any further leviable duty under the law.
4. The Pakistan Tea Association vide its letter of 2.5.1998 had given an opinion that the Green Tea under reference is to be assessed at a unit value of US$ 1.90/kg., therefore, the duty on the consignment was re-calculated and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,15,517/- secured through Bank guarantee was encashed and demand of Rs. 1,71,138/- being short levied was made by the Deputy Collector of Customs, It is said that as the demand was recovered, some amount remains unpaid.
5. The basic objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner against higher assessment per unit of the value duty inter alia is that under the provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 a procedure having been laid down for purpose of valuation, the dependence of the Customs Department on the advice of Pakistan Tea Association was something alien to the system and could not have been acted upon. Learned counsel for the appellant read the provisions of Sections 25, 25-A and 25-B before this Court in support of what he has contended.
6. When a system is laid for purposes of valuation, it has to be adhered to and appreciation of any evidence in this respect has to be in conformity with what is prescribed because otherwise depending on something outside the laid methodology would amount to an aberration and upon hearsay and can damage the requirement given by the law.
7. It is nowhere stated that the provisions of Section 25 have been followed. The advice coming from the Pakistan Tea Association was only a factor which-was to be considered. While we go through the order it appears that this was the main factor taken into consideration. This situation comes in clash with the provisions of Section 25 and, therefore, is not tenable in law and, therefore, it will be proper that the matter is remitted to the Deputy Collector Customs Dry Port, Rawalpindi, for following the procedure under Section 25 read with Section 30 for coming to a correct valuation in accordance with law. However, the advice given by the Pakistan Tea Association may be considered as one of the factors in this connection but not the basis. With these observations, the order in original and the order in appeal are set aside and the case is remitted to the Deputy Collector Customs for re-valuation in accordance with law. The re-valuation be achieved within a period of six weeks from today.