DR. ZULFIQAR A. MALIK, (MEMBER TECHNICAL-I).--- We intend to dispose of instant appe als filed by appellants, againA Order-in-Revision No.10/2018 dated 27.04.2018 passed by Director General of Customs Valuation, Karachi against Valuation Ruling No.1213/2017 dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Director , Valuation, Customs House, Karachi. All appeals have identical issues of law and facts and are therefore being heard, dealt with and disposed of simultaneously through this single consolidated judgment in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in Customs Reference No.157/2008 (S.M. Naqi son of Syed Muhammad Hussain Karachi v . Collector of Customs Adjudication-I and others, Karachi).
2. Since, these four (04) appeals are based on similar facts and question of law, therefore, it is needless to reproduce facts of each case separately , hence for reference the fact of Customs Appeal No. K-1099/2018 are taken into consideration for decision, wherein, facts of the case are that, appellant is regular importer of 'Secondary Quality HRC, CRC and GP Steel' from worldwide sources against established Letters of Credits at the prices mentioned therein. Whereas, all the payments of purchase price is made through proper banking channel under State Bank of Pakistan's approved Electronic Import Forms (EIPs). Hence, imported goods of the appellant are legally assessable under the mandate of section 25(1) read with Rule 113 of the Customs Rules, 2001, being Primary Method of Valuation, which is actual price paid or payable against the imported goods. However , the respondent No. 2 had passed impugned Valuation Ruling No. 1213/ 2017 dated 27.09.2017, incorporating an assessment formulae, which does not reflect the actual price trends of the international trade, hence, is arbitrary , contrary to law and nullity in the eyes of law, as there is nothing to doubt the actual price paid/declared value, rather just subtraction of assumed rate of discount from 'prime quality goods' as mentioned under LMB. The appellant, being seriously aggrieved of impugned Valuation Ruling, assailed legal remedy under section 25-D ibid. However , the respondent No. 1 failed to consider the material facts and evidences placed before her, rather arbitrarily advanced her departmental as well as local manufacturer's favoritism in clear dis-regards to the legal dictates and mandate under section 25(1) as well Rule 113 of the Valuation Rules, and passed the impugned Order-in-Review No. 10/2018 dated 27.04.2018, which is arbitrary , illegal and unlawful.
3. Being aggrieved with the impugned Order-in-Revision passed by the Director General of Customs Valuation, Karachi, present appellants filed the instant appeals before this Tribunal on the grounds incorporated in the Memo of Appeal.
4. Record of the case has been carefully examined and the argument put forth by the appellant and respondents have been duly considered. Mr. Adeel represented the appellants and Mr. Nawaz Khoso, appeared for the department. The responding department did not file cross objections as required under section 194-A (4) of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellants stated that they have imported goods against authentic form of payment i.e. letter of credit and the respondents did not consider their transaction value. The department has issued valuation ruling based a formula to determine customs value which is arbitrary and unreasonable. Mr. Adeel Awan, further stated that no proper or independent inquiry was conducted by the department. Accordingly appellants requested to set aside the impugned Order in Revision as well as the V aluation Ruling 1213/2017 dated 27.09.2017.
5. It is a matter of record that the above referred orders have been put to scrutiny in various judgements of this Tribunal; the latest being judgement in Customs Appeal No. K-42/2019. It has been held by this Tribunal that the Director Valuation at the time of preparation of the subject impugned Valuation Ruling, ignored the dictums of law settled by the Hon'able High Court of Sindh subsequently endorsed by the Hon'able Supreme Court, in the case of Sadia Jabbar . The Valuation Department is not empowered under any law to determine the customs values by taking the average LMB prices of four countries/zones (no evidence privy to it), it is a settled law that what has not been expressed could not be legally implied. Record reveals that the respondents applied the purported formula for determining customs values in total disre gard to the legislative provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969.
The department determined the customs values applied and finalized in the impugned Valuation Ruling under Section 25(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 without adopting the sequential manner envisaged under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, which is mandatory requirement under the law. The ratio of the Hon'ble Sindh High Court's judgment in Al-Amin Cera case passed on 19.03.2016, in relation to the issue at hand, being that the inclusion/ involvement of a local manufacturer in the matter of, among others, issuance of a Valuation Ruling under section 25A(1) would sender the same fatally tainted with illegality and thus liable to be struck-down. We find it incomprehensible as to why the issue about the legality of the local manufacturers participating in the proceedings for issuance of the impugned V aluation Ruling was not dealt with in the impugned Order-in-Revision.
6. Mr. Adeel Awan, stated that the previous judgments of the Tribunal have attained finality and he would be satisfied if the instant appeals are disposed off in those terms. The appellants case is identical in all aspects, therefore, the appeals are accepted in terms of earlier judgement in Customs Appeal No. K-42/2019. For the sake of clarity D operative para is reproduced hereunder; "08. On the basis of above deliberations, and by getting the strength, what has been stated and observed herein above particularly the interpretation of law and legal prepositions, in the light of prescribed law and to follow the ratio decidendi as observed by the superior courts, along with our additional observation's made therein, and judgement passed in the Customs Appeals Nos. K-585/ 2018 and K-498/ 2018, the subject Order -in-Revision No. 10/ 2018 dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Director General (Valuation), and Valuation Ruling No. 1213/2017 dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Director (Valuation), does not have any adherence with the statutory requirements, also derogatory from the specific provision of sections 25 and 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, declared without lawful authority , hereby set-aside."
7. Judgments passed and announced accordingly .