MUHAMMAD SADIQ, MEMBER TECHNICAL.---- This appeal filed by Director , Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs), Peshawar (the appellant) is directed against the Order-inOriginal No.147/2017 dated 13.10.2017, passed by the learned Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Islamabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Messrs Jan Builders, FF-697, Deans Trade Centre, Peshawar would attempt to clear used Hino Concrete Transit Mixer trucks by mis-declaring its value, from Peshawar Dry Port aiming to evade payment of legitimate duty/taxes leviable thereon. The formation under the control of the Appellant kept under electronic monitoring through Weboc the consignments of Concrete Transit Mixers under clearance at Peshawar Dryport vide G.D.No.PCSIHC-1684, PCSI-HC-1685, PCSI-HC-1686 and PCSI- HC-1687 all dated 30.11.2016.
After completion of customs procedure, these consignments were allowed release by Dryport staff on 01.12.2016.
The GDs were blocked by the reporting agency at gate out stage on the same date and detained. Further scrutiny/verification of import documents revealed that the importer had declared the vehicles as Concrete Transit Mixers and claimed classification/assessment under PCT Code 8705.4000 at declared value of US$ 2500. The Customs staff at Dryport Peshawar classi fied the goods as Concrete Transit Mixer and assessed the same at US $ 9,129 US$ 8,263 and US$ 7,533/- respectively . These consignments were later on examined by the appellant department which found that in the adapted/fabricated Hino Concrete Transit Mixers had different manufacturing models and types. Scrutiny of the clearance data of these goods reportedly transpired that the Concrete Mixers of said models had been assessed on much higher value at US $ 17,500, US $ 1275 6/-, US $ 12756, US $ 12,756/- and US $ 10,890/-. Respectively in other Collectorates following the criteria based on the make, model and year of its manufacturing. The assessment on lower values resulted in evasion/short payment of differential amount of duty/taxes of Rs.595,161/-, Rs.285,382/-, Rs.319,438/- and 535,581/- respectivel y. The concerned customs staff did not bother to ascertain the fair value of the said goods on the basis of evidential data that led to short realization of aforesaid duty/taxes. In view of foregoing facts, the importer was alleged to have committed offence of mis- declaration of value which caused loss of duty/taxes to the tune of Rs.35,001,650/- in violation of sections 32(1) and 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. Accordingly the case was referred for adjudication. A show-cause notice C.No.Cus/Coll / Adj/04/2017/645 dated 24.05.2017 was issued to M/s. BANS Builders, FF-697, Deans Trade Centre, Peshawar calling upon them to show-cause to why the seized vehicles should not be confiscated and why the short paid duty/taxes to the tune of Rs.35,001,650/- be not recovered from them and why penal action should not be taken against them under section 156(1)(14) of the Customs Act, 1969 for violation of Sections 32(1) and 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.
3. The adjudication proceedings culminated into passing of the impugned Orde r-in-Original No.147/2017 dated 13.10.2017. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows: "............. I have examined the aforesaid Orders-in-Original aswell as the Order-i n-Appeal No.232-35/2017 dated 15.05.2017 and keeping in view that the facts and overall circumstances remain the same, it is held that the charges levelled in the show cause notice against the respondent are not established, because the prosecution has failed to present relevant evidence to prove the under-valuation alleged by them, therefore, the show cause notice is vacated."
4. Aggrieved by the above impugned order , the appellant has filed the instant appeal. The contentions of the Appellant are briefly as follows: i. That the Adjudicating of ficer failed to appreciate the merits of the case while passing the impugned order . ii. That the importer (Respondent 6) mis-declared the value of and model etc. of the impugned transit mixer . iii. That the assessing officers of the Respondent Collectorate too failed to assess the GD in question fairly in accordance with section 25 of the Act; iv. That the act of the Respondents was aimed at causing a loss to the national exchequer; v. That to aver the loss, the Appellant department blocked the impugned consignment in the WeBOC (computerized system of Customs clearance) and after payment of assessed duties and taxes, intercepted it; vi. That the value declared by the importer and assessed by the assessing officer was on the lower side as compared to the evidential data where value was ranged from over US$10000 to US$ 13000/ and in certain cases (depending upon model) to US$17000.
5. The importer / Respondent 4, represented by the Counsel, controverted the contentions of the appellant and defended the impugned order .
6. Arguments heard and case file perused with the assistance of both the parties. The issue involved is the legality of assessment of the impugned goods and cognizance of the matter by the Appellant. It is common practice that goods are assessed by the Customs staff to duties and taxes in terms of section 80 of the Act. The parameters for arriving at the valuation have been stipulated under section 25 of the Act. In the instant cases the Appellant has alleged that importer misdeclared the attributes and value of the consignment. The other Respondent (the Customs officers effecting clearance) were the appropriate officers in terms of SRO 374 of 2012 entrusted with the functions of appropriate officer under section 80 of the Act. Furthermore the provisions of section 25 of the Act had been adhered to, to arrive at a reasonable value to make it "assessed value" under , the said section. Once the goods were assessed to duties and taxes and allowed release in terms of section 83 of the Act, the transaction had been completed. As the due process was adopted, after the release of the consignment the same could not be subjected to detention (or seizure by the Appellant's officers). The appellants is not authorized to make valuation of the impugned goods as his department / formation is not entrusted with functions of valuation under the law (section 83 or section 80 of the Act). The learned Adjudication officer decided the case on merits by properly appreciating the different aspects of the controversy and after affording hearing opportunity to the parties. It is viewed that the appellant could not shatter the basis of the impugned order . Rather the action of the officers under the control of the Appellant was infected with transgr essing their authority which action was not vindicated by the learned adjudication of ficer.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Original No.147 of 2017 dated 13.10.2017. W e accordingly uphold the said order and reject the appeal.
8. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.