' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10-3-2003 of the Lahore High Court whereby appeal filed by it has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed Bill of Entry for clearance of goods imported from Canada. The Assessing Authority after considering the said document and the contention raised by the petitioner, accepted the value of the goods as mentioned in the said Bill of Entry as the value at which the customs duty should be paid against which the petitioner felt aggrieved. It challenged the order of the Assessing Authority before the higher forum under the Customs Laws and after having failed, filed appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 10-3-2003 against which leave is sought.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 25(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, a notification was issued by the Federal Government providing the value of the goods at which the same should be assessed for the purpose of customs duty which has not been taken into consideration, for under section 25 of the Act, the Assessing Authority was under legal obligation to adjudicate upon the question of value of the goods notwithstanding the value declared by the importers in the Bill of Entry.
4. We have examined section 25 which is the charging section and section 25(b) of the said Act and find that under section 25(b), the Federal Government is empowered to issue notification providing the minimum value of the goods at which the same should be assessed for the purpose of payment of customs duty in a case where the value of the same could not otherwise be determined or assessed. Under section 25 of the Act, the Customs Authorities are vested with the power to determine the value of the goods for the purpose of charging the customs duty.
5. We find from the orders passed by the Customs Authorities that the case of the petitioner was that after the purchase of the goods from the country of the origin at the value mentioned in the Bill of Entry, the value of the same had gone down on account of fluctuation in the market price which factor had not been gone into by the Adjudicating Officer, as such, according to it, it is a case of refusal to exercise power of adjudication.
6. Since the petitioner raised the plea that the value of the goods had gone down on account of fluctuation in the country from where the goods were imported, therefore, the onus was on the petitioner to prove by evidence as to what extent, the value of the goods had decreased. No evidence was produced by the petitioner. The Customs Authorities who were vested with the power to assess the actual value of the goods for the purpose of customs duty, therefore, in the absence of any such evidence were justified in law to accept the value of the goods as declared in the Bill of Entry as the value for the purpose of customs duty to which no exception can legally be taken by the petitioner.
7. As has already been observed above, value entered in the notification issued by the Federal Government under section 25(b), of the Act, in such circumstances, was not relevant, for evidence in the nature of declaration by the petitioner itself about the actual value of the goods in the Bill of Entry was available which could legally be made basis for assessing the goods at the said value.
8. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly, dismissed and .