' Since the controversy is short and both learned counsel appeared to be prepared, we decided to admit the petition and take it up for final hearing. The petitioner had imported Embroidery Thread from China and declared its transaction value to the US $ 4.95 per K.G. However, the respondent around that time appeared to consider transaction value of similar goods at $ 7.50 per K.G. The resolution of dispute at the time when the goods were lying on the Port was avoided upon the petitioner's paying at the rate of the declared value and furnishing guarantee for the additional amount claimed by the respondent. A provisional assessment was made at Rs,496,768 out of which Rs,324,248 were paid and the remainder were secured by guarantees. The aforesaid provisional assessm ent became final upon expiry of the statutory period.
2. Mr. M. Afzal Awan learned counsel for the petitioner in the first place urged that provisional assessm ent had been made only on declared value which assumed finality and duty in terms of the assessm ent under section 25(5) could not be claimed. We think this contention is based on misconception, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent. The goods declaration Form itself shows that an amount in addition to the one already paid was found to be payable though payment was deferred. We are therefore, of the view that provisional assessment was in fact made at the rate calculated under section 25(5) of the Customs Act which assumed finality.
3. Nevertheless, there is substance in the petitioner's second submission that no reasons appeared to be available for deviating from the normal process under section 25(1) of the Customs Act and resorted to section 25(5). Indeed the later provision provides that assessment on the basis of value of identical goods can only be made when it is not possible to make an assessment on the basis of declared value under section 25(1). Indeed there appears nothing to show that the invoices submitted by the petitioner were incorrect or any other reason for deviating from the normal basis of assessm ent existed. We would accordingly set aside the impugned valuation ruling dated 31-10- 2005 and remand the matter to the valuation authority who will, after hearing the parties make the assessm ent under section 25(1) or only when it is not possible to do so resort to section 25(5) of the Customs Act within three months from today. The parties thereafter may seek adjudication of their grievance in the hierarchy of Tribunals under the Customs Act.