SHAKEEL AHMED ABBASI, MEMBER JUDICIAL-III. By this order, I intend to dispose of the above Customs Appeal No.K-1418/2016 filed by the Appellant, against Order-in-Appeal-No.540/2016 dated 10-05-2016 passed by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) Karachi and Assessment Order dated 23-01-2016 on GD No.KAPE-HC-13335-29-07-2016 assess by the Assessment Officers, MCC Appraisement (East), Custom House, Karachi.
2. That the Appellant has imported a consignment, Goods Declaration was filed with Customs Authorities for clearance of imported goods in terms of Section 79(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1969, read With Rules, therein true, complete and correct Description, Classification, Quantity, Quality, Quality, Weight, Origin and Value of the imported goods were declared, duly supported by the Commercial Invoice, Packing List and Bill of Lading etc., which is clearly indicate the imported goods Description and Classification of goods, Quantity, Quality, Weight and Value Amount and paid the leviable amount of duty and other taxes amounting to Rs.13,16.4761= in terms of clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1969, in the NBP, Custom House Branch, Karachi.
3. That the Customs Department opened their case, for exercise of jurisdiction under section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Rule 438 of the Customs Rules, 2001 to satisfy itself regarding correctness of description and classification of goods, quantity, quality, weight, origin, value and assessm ent and payment of duties and taxes. The Customs Authorities refused to clear the imported goods on declared value and matter refer to the Directorate General of Customs Valuation, Karachi as per High Court Order, therefore, the GD was provisional assessed under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 on 05-08-2015 and deposited the Security Amount or Rs.4,73,1491=, whereas GD was final assessm ent under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 on 23- 01-2016, the concerned assessm ent officer illegally enhanced the value US$-2.50 to US$-3.55, in the light of Director Valuation letter dated 08-01-2016 issued for the instant GD.
4. That the Appellant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment order passed by the Assessm ent Officer, filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi, the Collector of Customs, (Appeals), Karachi, without considering the contentions of the Appellant, without considering the 90 days' data, as well as facts of grounds, and law point, passed the Order- in-Appeal No.540/2016 dated 10.05.2016. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- "3. I have examined the case record. The appellants have imported the goods and declared the customs value US$.2.50/sq meter. At the time of assessment, there was no prevalent Valuation Ruling issued under section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellants declared value was not backed by documentary trail or banking transactions. As per advice by the Directorate General of Valuation, assessment was finalized @ US$ 3.55/sq. meter, within the time limit provided under Section 81 of the Act. The appellant now seeks, assessment of goods in accordance with Valuation Ruling No.758/2015 dated 08-09-2015, which has been issued two months after import of goods. The current Valuation Ruling has prospective application. The prayer is not entertain-able. The valuation ruling cannot be given retrospective effect 1, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the assessment. The appeal being without merit fails."
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Orders the appellant filed the instant appeals before this Customs Appellant Tribunal on the grounds incorporated in the memo of appeal, relevant as well as main points are read as under:- a. That the Customs Authorities refused to clear the imported goods on decelared value and matter refer to the Directorate General of Customs Valuation, Karachi as per High Court Order, therefore the GD dated 29-07-2015 was provisional Assessed under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 on 05-08-2015 and deposited the Security Amount for Rs.4,73,149/=, whereas GD was final under section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 on 23-01-2016, the concerned assessm ent officer illegally enhanced the value US$-2.50 to US$-3.55, in the light of Director 'Valuation letter dated 08-01-2016 issued for the instant GD, declaration and assessm ent details are as under:- DescriptionCeramic Tiles (Wall Tiles),Seize 25x50 CM.Classification6908.9010 Declaration Value US$-2.50Prov. Assessm ent US$-3.42New V. Ruling US$-2.65Final Assess USS-3,55Different US$-0.90 As per old V. Ruling b. Whereas the Model Customs Collectorate, Appraisement West, Customs House, Karachi assed the imported goods as per New Valuation Ruling, vide GD No.KAPW-HC-243657-13-06-2016.
US$-2.65 and 2nd GD No. KAPW-HC244479-14-06-2016. LIS$-2.65. Whereas the staff of the Respondent No.2 assessed the imported goods and enhance the value US$-3.55, without jurisdiction illegal assessm ent on the basis of Deputy Director letter dated 08-01-2016, whereas the under section 25-A does not delegate power to Deputy Director to issue valuation advice, guideline or direction, therefore, the valuation advice, guideline or determined on the basis of such valuation advice it is illegal and against the law, vide judgment reported in 2008 PTD 1742 any Valuation Ruling or guideline issued without specific reasoning, it is also illegal and against the principal law, vide inclement reported in 2008 PTD 1250. Furthermore, the Nature scone of Valuation Ruling, the Valuation Ruling cannot be considered a piece of evidence unless the same is based upon sound footing, decided by the Superior Court judgment reported in 2009 PTD 281. It is also violation of Section 25(1) to (4) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with Rules 109(3) of the Customs Rules, 2001, hence the valuation without any documentary evidence, without specific reasoning, neither there is any evidence of invoice value/transaction value nor is any valuation ruling of the Directorate General of Valuation available with the Customs Department leading to increase in duty and taxes, without any cogent evidence/specific reasons, without any basis and without applying provision of Section 25(5), (6), (7) and (8) of the Customs Act, 1969. therefore, final assessm ent on the basis of illegal and without jurisdiction letter, without reasoning, without nature scope of valuation ruling, as well as against the Valuation Ruling No.758/2015 dated 08.09.2015 issued by the Director Valuation which is fixed the value US$-2.65, whereas the Customs Department assessed the imported goods US$-3.55, enhance the value, consequently the import duty and other taxes were enhance from Rs.13,16,476/= to 18 57 461/=. c. That the Appellant is regular importer the Appellant imported the consignments of same goods in the past which were cleared by the Customs Authorities without any problems accepting the declaration, classification and value of goods. The Appellant had submitted Commercial Invoice, Packing List and Bill of Lading issued by the exporter and shipping company. The Respondent may verify its authenticity from their-own sources independently. The departments enhance the value, which is incorrect, without any documentary proof, illegal and against the law. It also does not disclose the evidence like value of similar goods, identical goods. Valuation Ruling etc., It indicates that the Customs have arbitrarily entranced the value without any legal backing and providing evidence, the Customs has, in fact deprived Appellant from his right of defense such enhance the value has no standing in the eyes of law, hence, the impugned assessment order may kindly be set-aside and directed to the Respondent that may kindly be re-assess the GD on the basis of New Valuation Ruling, in the best interest of justice. d. That the staff of the Respondent as well as Assessment Officer has not been provided any basis of enhancement of value of the imported goods of the Appellant, whereas staff of the Respondent assessed the identical and similar imported goods on the basis of New Valuation Ruling No.758/2015 dated 08-09-2015, why not consider/assessed the imported goods of the Appellant on the basis of New Valuation Ruling No.758/2015, it is documentary proof that the assessment on the basis of valuation department letter, it is illegal, without jurisdiction and against the law, therefore, may kindly consider the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan already decided the identical case, reported in 2005 SCMR 492 in respect of Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Village Development Organization, in C.P. No.1502/04 on 16-12-2003, "A facility allowed to some and denied to one is the discrimination." This is totally absurdity besides giving a differential treatment, which is not permitted under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. e. That as per Rule 109 of Chapter-IX of the Customs Rules, 2001 the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of Assessing Officer to explain the method of assessm ent. And as per Rule 113 of the Customs Rules, 2001 provides the primary method of valuation. The Respondent has not applied this method and has given no justification of their actions. f. That as per S.No.1(d) appearing in SRO 487(1)/2007 dated 09-06-2007 that values are not determined on the basis of direct evidence and accept declared transaction value and matter thereof is finalized subject to past import audit. Furthermore, the procedure set out in Customs Rules, 2001 amended vide SR0.704(1)/2007, the Respondent under legal obligation to follow the statutory provisions in terms of SRO 704(1)/2007 dated 14-07-2007, but the essence of said SRO has been violated with a view to victimize the importer. g. That the under Rule 107(a) of the Customs Rules, read-with Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the Customs Authorities were under legal obligation to provide evidences of high transactional value of last 90 days. It is noteworthy that the import data/record being maintained by MCC Port Qasim and PACCS is based on documents and information collected from Public and Private sector, therefore, there is no prime aspect of "secrecy" is involved as pleaded by the learned Respondent. In the light of Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984; our request for exhibition of evidence of value during last 90 days was quite justified and maintainable in the eyes of law, but it was declined without any plausible reasons/grounds. h. That the evidence of value is valid and applicable if it falls within the period of 90 days prior and after the consignment to whom it is applied provided that the goods am identical/similar (CGO No.01/81 and Valuation Ruling, 2002, Rule 107(a) issued by the Valuation Department), Customs Rules, 2002 are also vary clear on the subject. The Appellant imported the goods, whereas the Respondent assessed the high value, without any evidence, of the period as envisaged in the law, which is violation of under Section 25(5)(6)(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 provision of SRO 450(1)/2001, Chapter-IX of the Customs Rules, 2001 and Rule 107-A of the Valuation Ruling, 2002. As such the enhancement of the transaction value of the Appellant without any supporting data of contemporaneous imports pertaining to ninety days valuation data is arbitrary and unlawful and against the laws settled down in the judgements of superior judicial fora reported detail as under: a. 2002 PTD 2957 b. 2005 PTD 21 c. 2004 PTD 2993 d. 2005 PTD 909 e. 2006 PTD 1876 f. 2006 PTD 232 g. 2007 SCMR 1385 = 2007 PTD 1858 h. 2008 PTD 1250 i. 1992 SCMR 1083 j. 2009 SCMR 438 i. That the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore decided the case in various Writ Petitions reported in 2008 PTD 1494 in respect of M/s Toyo International Motorcycle, held that "Section 25 is follow up of the General Agreement of Trade and Tariff (GATT) and is to bring a new system based upon harmony trust and mutual respect.-------- The methods of customs valuation are required to be applied in a sequential order under Section 25(10) the contents of General Agreement of Trade and Tariff are not to be considered-------- Sequential order provided in Section 25 is mandatory, therefore, valuation advice prepared and issued in total disregard of the same is illegal-------- Non reference to adoption of procedure provided in Section 25 in valuation advice would lead to presumption that if the sequential order was adopted and is not mentioned in letter, it was against revenue and draftsman of valuation advice." j. In the wake of above when the Honourable Islamabad High Court has decided that impugned Valuation Ruling No.216/2010 dated 03-02-2010, is set aside and all cases are remanded back and has been directed to pass a fresh order/ruling regarding determination of customs value of above said items in accordance with law and rules as well as guidelines provided in the said judgment.
The logical outcome of the said order of the Honourable Islamabad High Court is that the assessment made on the defunct valuation ruling (set aside by the order of the Honourable High Court) has no legal force ab initio. Those cases have to be finalized as per new valuation ruling based on import data of 90 days and in conformity with provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and Customs Valuation Rules (including Rules 110 and 121 ibid). And for the current cases the D.V. has to be accepted as arbitrary valuation benchmark to secure the differential amount has since been set aside by the Honourable Islamabad High Court. k. That the Customs Department have violated the guidelines given by the Honourable High Court in W.P. No.1756/12. hence entire act of the Customs Department regarding non acceptance of the declared value of the imported goods of the appellant being the highest value of the imported goods and determine / assess the value of the imported goods in terms of subsection (I) of Section 25-A on his own motion but after following the methods laid down in Sections 25 and 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969. The Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 cannot be used for the wholesale determination of the Customs value which transforms the "determination" in view of Section 25A to an impressible fixation of value. In the instant matter, the Customs Authorities in contrary to the provisions of the Section 25A has fixed the customs value of the impugned goods which is impressible / settled in the case of Saddia Jabbar, in C.P. No.2673/2009 as held by the Honourable High Court, that value shall be determined in accordance with the difference in brands, quality, reputation, specification and characteristics of the goods. The provision of Section 25(5)(d) of the Act, 1969 has been deliberately and malafidely violated while determining the value in the impugned ruling -and the Customs Authorities deliberately neglected the lowest transactions of the Appellant as per Customs data/record of last ninety days prior to date of import. The impugned guideline advice/is illegal and unlawful and is on higher side and issued without following law, hence liable to be set-aside. The provision of under Section 5(d) is reproduced below:-
(d) If, in applying the provisions of this subsection, there are two or inure transaction values of identical goods that meet all the requirements of this subsection and clauses (b), (d), (e) and (1) of subsection (13), the customs value of the imported goods shall be the lowest such transaction value, adjusted as necessary in accordance with clauses (b) and (c).
Upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported in 2012 SCMR 617. The Customs Department instead of determining the value under Section 25 in sequential order has made malpractice of assessing the impugned goods on the predetermined value on the basis of the valuation advice/guideline on the alleged ground of under invoicing front time to time, which is not permissible under the law.
1. It is clear cut decision/order of the Honourable Supreme Court decided in PLD 1996 Karachi 68 (M/s. Kamran Industries v. Collector) and Eastern Rice Syndicate v. CBR (PLO 1959 SC (Pak) 364) that the allegation framed by the Department against the party the detecting agency would proof the allegation frame against the party. It they have fail to do so, the charge from against my client should be treated harassm ent, baseless, unlawful and not maintainable on the facts mentioned, it is therefore, may kindly set-aside the impugned assessment order, passed by the staff of the Respondent, in the best interest of justice. m. That in view of the above the Applicant has done substantial compliance with the requirement of law and having fulfilled the requirement of law without providing the proper opportunity of hearing and without providing the documentary direct evidence regarding enhance the value and demand the enhance duty and taxes, without consider the Honourable Superior Court Orders, it is illegal, null and void it is therefore, may kindly set-aside the impugned orders, passed the Respondents, in the best interest of justice. The reliance is placed on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in 1994 SCMR 2232 and M/s. Nishat Mills Ltd, as reported in PLD 1989 SC 222. With regarding to these procedural aspects, of not claiming in the very period, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here under:-- "The proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights.
All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy.
The English system of administration of justice on which our own is based may be to a certain extent technical but we are not to take from that system its defect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights is defective to that extent. The ideal must always be a system that gives to every person what is his." n. That the impugned orders of the Respondents without providing any lawful reason/direct evidential basis is in violative to principles of natural justice/the Section 24-A of General Clauses Act as well as rulings of Honourable Superior Courts given in identical cases are binds every authority, officer or person to pass a fair and just order, operative para of the said provision / Section is reproduced as under:- "24-A. Exercise of power under enactment's (1) where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or given any direction is conferred on any authority, office or persons such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) the authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or as the case may be the direction to the person affected prejudicially." a. 2002 CLC 244 b. 1999 SCMR 2189 c. 1998 SCMR 2268 However, the impugned enhance assessment order itself speaks loudly that the Respondent has not acted fairly, reasonably, justly and for the advancement of the enactment stipulated in subsections (1), (5) and (6) of the Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. In this case not only the re- assessm ent order contained express provisions of law, but the reassessment order is defective, incomplete, vague and not express, which also indicates the carelessness and irresponsibility of assessm ent officer. o. That the learned Respondent has passed the impugned orders just being an EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND NOT BEING A JUDICIAL OFFICER, therefore, the impugned orders being stereo type/non- speaking orders and devoid of reason same is not substantiated in law as laid down by the Superior Court. Furthermore, the Respondents failed to apply his judicial mind to the submissions made by the Appellant. The decisions of the learned Respondent; is therefore, capricious, arbitrary, unjust and illegal, it is against the law; it is liable to be set-aside the impugned orders, passed by the Respondents, following identical cases:- a. 1984 SCMR 1014 b. PLD 1970 SC 158 c. PLD 1970 SC 173 d. PLD 1959 SC 2721 P. That the Honourable Federal Tax (Ombudsman) in identical case of M/s. Nadeem Textile Mills Ltd., reported in (2002 PTD 3087) clearly held that the principles of law enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Honourable High Court is (a) binding force on all the citizen and any defiance from its implementation is tantamount to maladministration. As far as the following rather obeying the opinion judgments etc of our the Honourable Higher Courts by the Subordinate Courts the Tribunals and the Adjudication Authorities is concerned is a legal and conditional bindings otherwise it make the delinquent liable for a server action as held in 1993 PCr.LJ 1701 Lahore and PLD 1994 SC 879 respectively. q. That the Respondent No.2 has already been released the imported goods vide GD No.KAPW-HC- 243657-13-06-2016, US$-2.65 and 2nd GD No. KAPW-HC-244479-14-06-2016. US$-2.65, why not consider the Applicant imported goods, it is against the law, the equal protections of law dose not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, but it contemplates those persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike. A law applying to one person or are class of person may be constitutionally valid if there insufficient basis or reason for it, but a value which is arbitrary and is not founded on any rational basis is no value as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Articles the impugned assessment order passed by the Respondent, is against Guaranteed Fundamental Right of the Applicant and violative of Articles 4, 13, 18, 24 and 25 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
6. That the Departmental Representatives appeared on behalf of the Respondent and exercised their right of rebuttal. The learned DR straight away argued the cases i.e., after a proper opportunity of hearing was conducted, then passed the assessment order and subsequently passed the proper Order-in-Appeal, after the proper opportunity of hearing and the teamed DR forcefully supported the charges levelled in the assessment order and subsequent Order-in-Appeal before this forum and prayed that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with the law, hence same may be upheld. The subject appeal may be dismissed having no merits, in the best interest of justice.
7. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and have gone through the available record and heard counsel for parties at length. The case of the Appellant is that the respondent under Section 25-A cannot not delegate power to Deputy Director to issue valuation advice, guideline or direction through letter, therefore, the valuation advice. guideline or determined on the basis of such valuation advice it is illegal and against the law, vide judgment reported in 2008 PTD 742 any Valuation Ruling or guideline issued without specific reasoning, it is also illegal and against the principle of law, vide judgment reported in 2008 PTD 1250. Furthermore, the Nature scope of Valuation Ruling, the Valuation ruling cannot be considered a piece of evidence unless the same is based upon sound footing, decided by the Superior Court judgment reported in 2009 PTD 281. It is also violation of Section 25(1) to (4) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with Rules 109(3) of the Customs Rules, 2001, hence the valuation without any documentary evidence, without specific reasoning, neither there is any evidence of invoice value / transaction value nor is any valuation ruling of the Directorate General of Valuation available with the Customs Department leading to increase in duty and taxes, without any cogent evidence / specific reasons, without any basis and without applying provision of Section 25(5), (6), (7) and (8) of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, final assessm ent on the basis of illegal and without jurisdiction letter, without reasoning, without nature scope of valuation ruling, as well as against the Valuation Ruling No.758/2015 dated 08-09-2015, issued by the Director Valuation, which is fixed the value US$-2.65, whereas the Customs Department assessed the imported goods US$-3.55, enhance the value, consequently the import duty and other taxes were enhance from Rs.13,16,476/-= to 18,57,461/=. On the strength of orders / judgement passed by the Honorable apex Court, and High Court of Sindh at Karachi, reported in 2019 PTD 1964 in respect of M/s Sky Overseas relevant para "28. Without prejudice to our hereinabove findings regarding legality and interpretation of amendment in Rule 107(a) of the Customs Rules, 2001 through SRO 564(1)/2007 dated 01-07-2017, we may further observe that the Chief Collector Customs and / or for such purpose the FBR has no authority to issue any circular and administrative direction of the nature, which may interfere with the judicial or quasi-judicial function entrusted to the various functionaries under Statute. Any circular or instructions issued by the FBR or by any other officer performing functions under the administrative control of FBR relating to interpretation of any statutory provision, rule or regulation, cannot be treated as judicial interpretation, hence' not binding on authorities performing judicial and / or quasi-judicial function.
Reliance in this regard can be placed in the case Central Insurance Co. v. CBR, reported as (1993 SCMR 1232). Keeping in view above legal position as emerged under the facts and circumstances of instant case and by respectfully following the ratio of the above cited judgements, the, impugned circular was declared to be illegal without lawful authority.
8. From the perusal of available records, it is evident that the appellant has discharged his onus with regard to the declared transactional value of imported goods by providing a valid Invoice and other allied documents. It was the duty of the responding department to disprove it with cogent reasons in the light of reported Judgement 2008 SCMR 438 (Collector of Customs, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim v. M/s Zymotic Diagnostic International, Faisalabad). Their Lordships vide above-referred Judgement held that "For rejecting or refusing to accept value declared by the consignee in respect of imported goods, the concerned office is required to given cogent, plausible and satisfactory reasons for non-acceptance of declared value and rejection thereof cannot proceed on whims or desire of officer of Customs department. The Assessing Officer is required to point out some flaw or defect or such circumstances which create doubt with regard to the veracity and correctness of the declared or that same had been under-invoiced. In determining or assessing the fair value or normal price of such imported consignments, the concerned office is tinder obligation to take such consideration all necessary factors and circumstances enumerated under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, for such determination and assessment, without any justification and cogent evidence /specific reasons, it is illegal and against the law the Respondents illegally processed and assessed the GD and harassed the Importer, used the delay tactic, nor consider the 107(a) of the Customs Rules, read with Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the Customs Authorities were under a legal obligation to provide evidence of the high transactional value of last 90 days and 109 of Chapter-IX of the Customs Rules, 2001 the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of Assessing Officer to explain the method of assessm ent. And as per Rule 113 of the Customs Rules, 2001 provides the primary method of valuation, neither considering the Hon'ble High Court Order reported in 2005 PTD 909 regarding bank transactions nor considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court Orders reported in 2007 PTD 1858, 2008 SCMR 438 and 2019 SCMR 1126, regarding fair assessm ent, justification and cogent reasons, it is documentary proof for harassm ent to the Importer by the Respondents, in the instant case, the department has failed to bring on record any evidence, which could substantiate that necessary measures as laid down by the Honorable apex Court have never been implanted in its true perspective for rejecting and refusing the declared value and enhance the value without any evidence. The department has only relied upon import data of identical goods imported by other importers in the past for rejecting / refusing the value of the consignment declared by the appellant. In order to negate the declared value of the consignment, the department was under obligation to procure evidence to discard the value declared by the appellant.
9. In the instant case, the department has failed to bring on record any evidence, which could substantiate that necessary measures as laid down by the Honorable apex Court have never been implanted in its true perspective for rejecting and refusing the declared value. The department has only relied upon import data of identical goods imported by other importers in the past for rejecting / refusing the value of the consignment declared by the appellant. In order to negate the declared value of the consignment, the department was under obligation to procure evidences to discard the value declared by the appellant.
10. In view of the afore-going discussion, legal position, and apex court judgment. I hold that in the best interest of justice and fair play, the Importer could not be held guilty; the orders passed by the Forums below lack warrant of law and have no adherence with the statutory requirements are in derogation of the specific provisions of law, therefore, are declared void and illegal. Therefore, I am of the considered view that transactional value of the impugned consignment declared by the appellant is valid. The declared transactional value be accepted in accordance to the provisions of law as envisaged under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 for the subsequent assessment of the consignment accordingly. Furthermore, the law has been clearly elaborated in the above order of the Hon'ble apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court; therefore, I find that the action taken by the respondents is not in conformity with the provisions of the law. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned assessm ent order and Order-in-Appeal passed by the Respondents.
11. Appeals are accordingly allowed as prayed and disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost.