ORDER: MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI.--(1). The above numbered 9 constitutional petitions, involving identical, controversy are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The case of the petitioners is that on import of their respective goods/consignments, the respondents instead of accepting their declared value as per the bills of entry for finalizing their assessm ents, have provisionally assessed and released their goods in terms of section 81(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, and subsequently without following the due course for determining the valuation of their goods for assessment, as contemplated under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, they are threatening to finalize their assessments in terms of section 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 on the basis of Valuation Ruling No, 708/2006 received by them from the Directorate of Customs Valuation and Appraisement, Custom House, Karachi, vide letter dated 31-8-2006.
3.The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that such Valuation Ruling is not binding on them, therefore, it cannot be made basis for finalization of provisional assessments in terms of section 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, but procedure contemplated under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 is to be followed for this purpose and due opportunity is to be provided to the petitioners before finalization of their respective provisional assessments. In support of his submission learned counsel made reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Rehan Umer v. Collector of Customs, Karachi and 2 others 2006 PTD 909 and also the case of Messrs Habib-ur-Rehman & Company v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 4 others 2005 PTD 69 wherein identical controversy raised before the Court was answered as under:-- "We are inclined to dispose of this petition with the observation that final assessment of the petitioner shall be undertaken under section 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 by respondents and while making such assessm ent the Collector of Customs (Appraisement) Department will consider all the evidence available, and the letter dated 23-2-2004 will not be taken as conclusive evidence of valuation. Further the final assessment in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act will be done with proper opportunity to the petitioner to place the material to that effect on record."
4.In his reply, Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the valuation ruling from the Directorate of Valuation and Appraisement, is normally considered as basis for finalization of assessm ent of goods mentioned therein, but in view of the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and many other judgments on the similar point, the Customs Authorities are bound to follow the procedure and guidelines provided therein.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and perused the relevant record placed before us, which goes to show that these petitions are premature at this stage, as only the valuation ruling has been received by the respondents from the Directorate of Customs Valuation and Appeasement, but as yet based on such valuation ruling no final assessment has been made by the concerned officials of the Customs Authorities in terms of sections 25 and 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed at this stage that only the valuation ruling received by the Customs Authorities will form basis for the valuation and final assessm ent of the goods of the petitioners.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner, faced with the above factual position, submits that he will be satisfied with the disposal of these petitions with the similar observations from this Court as contained in the case of Messrs Habib-ur-Rehman (supra). Such submission made by the learned counsel seems to be just, equitable and proper, and it is not seriously opposed by the other side.
7. Accordingly, we dispose of all these petitions with the observations that whenever the final assessm ent of the petitioner's goods is undertaken by the Customs Authorities, under section 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, they shall consider all the record available before them and the valuation ruling about the goods in question received from the Directorate of Customs Valuation, would not be taken as conclusive evidence for valuation of such goods. The final assessment in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act will be done after giving proper opportunity to the petitioners to put up their case, and place the relevant material on record in support of their claim or in rebuttal to the claim of the respondents.
8. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that in C.P. No, D-1986 of 2006, the goods of the petitioner have not yet been released under the scheme of provisional assessment provided under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, the Customs Authorities may be directed to do the needful for this purpose. Suffice it to say that for this purpose the petitioner may approach the Customs Department for seeking release of their goods on the basis of provisional assessm ent contemplated by section 81(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.