AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above eight constitutional petitions. The petitioners have imported certain agricultural machinery from China.
Upon the arrival of the consignments, they declared the value as per invoices, which respondent No.1 has not accepted. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the above petitions. The petitioners alongwith the petitions have inter alia annexed an order dated 30-9-1987 passed by Mr G.A.
Jehangir, Additional Secretary, Govt. Of Pakistan, upon a Revision No.1 (116)/Rev-Cus of 1987 filed by one Riaz Hussain Sheikh, in order to indicate that respondent No.3 had accepted the invoice value and did not accept the value assessed by the Customs Department. It has, therefore, been contended by Mr. Khursheed Anwar Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1 has no justification not to accept the value declared by the petitioner particularly in presence of the above order of respondent No.3.
2. On the other hand, Mr. Zahiruddin Khan appearing for the Official respondents has invited our attention to Annexure D 4, which is a certificate issued by China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation dated 3-3--1984 containing the price of Diesel Engine C & F Karachi. It has, therefore, been contended by Mr. Zaheeruddin Khan that the respondent No.1 is justified in basing the assessm ent of value on the above certificate and on other material. The case of the petitioner is that the above certificate does not reflect the correct value in view of the special terms and conditions contained in the agreement between China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation and their associate in Pakistan, PECO and factually the above certificate had been procured.
3. We may observe that this Court has repeatedly held that for the purpose of assessing value the department is to rely upon some material, which material is to be shown to an importer and the latter is to be given an opportunity to bring on record some other material in rebuttal to show that factually the value declared by him in the Bill of Entry is the correct valuation. Reference may be made to the case of Indus Automobile (Pvt.) Ltd. v Central Board of Revenue and 2 others reported in PLD 1988 Kar 99, in which guideline has been provided to the respondents.
Mr. Khursheed Anwar Sheikh has contended that in terms of explanation I to subsection (6) of Section 25 the respondent No.1 cannot rely upon the aforesaid certificate issued by China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation, as the above explanation provides that the price is not to be influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise between the seller or any person associated in business with him and the buyer or any person associated in business with him other than relationship created by the sale itself. In our view the object of the above explanation seems to be that if by virtue of special relationship the supplier has charged lesser price from their associate the above price cannot be made basis for assessm ent but the above explanation does not prohibit from referring to any such price as a piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the correct price in terms of section 35 alongwith other materials.
4. In our view, it will be appropriate that the case is remanded to respondent No.2 with the direction that he should decide the case afresh on the question of price in terms of above cited judgment.
The department as well as the petitioners will be provided opportunity to bring on record material to prove their respective contentment. The respondent No.1 shall decide the case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
M.Y.H./A-530/K