AJMAL MIAN, J.--This petition was dismissed by us today limine for reasons to be recorded later.
2. The petitioner is carrying on business of automobile parts. According to the petitioner, it had imported non-genuine automobile parts from Japan under an import licence and on arrival of the imported goods at the Karachi Port, it submitted a Bill of Entry in the 'Customs House for keeping the goods in the bound warehouse. However, the goods have not been cleared on the basis of their price declared by the petitioner: It has been pleaded that the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) respondent No. 3 wants to make asssessment on the basis' of Customs General.
Order No. 5 of 1985 dated 2-5-85 as amended by another order dated 23-5-1985 and Customs General Order No. 10 of 1987, dated 7-6-1987, all issued by the Central Board of Revenue, which is not authorised by law.
3. Mr. Khalid Ishaque in support of the petition has contended that the value of imported goods is to be assessed by the Customs Authorities in accordance with Section 25 of the Customs Act which prescribes the criteria of and the manner of evaluation of price of goods for the purpose of imposition of Customs duty, which according to the section would be the price in open international market between a free willing purchaser and a free and willing 'seller. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 25 cannot be over ridden by any order or a Customs General Order as issued by the Central Board of Revenue, the respondent No. 1.
4. We rind no merit in these contentions. Although there can be no cavil with the proposition advanced by the petitioner's counsel as far as the interpretation of section 25 of Customs Act is concerned but admittedly in the present case the value of the imported goods has not yet been assessed by the Customs Authorities. Therefore, in the first instance, no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner in the 'present case. No doubt, section 25 provides for determination of the value of the imported goods in the manner as contended by Mr. Khalid Ishaque, but unless the valuation of the goods has been actually made by the Customs Authorities and the same is found to be not in consonance with the provisions of section 25 of the Customs Act, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Therefore the mere assertion that duty on the imported goods will be assessed on the basis of the Customs General Orders cannot provide any cause of, action to the petitioner. We have seen the impugned general orders. It is evident from them that the object behind the orders appears to be to prevent some unscrupulous importers from misdeclaring the value, etc. Of the imported auto--parts and causing consequent loss to: the national exchequer.
The object also appears to be to save the local industry from unfair competition. Furthermore, Order No: 10/78, dated 7th June, 1987, which is the. West in this respect, indicates that the same has been, issued in consultation with thr representatives of the importers of auto-parts arid is based on the information supplied by them to the concerned authorities. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect the bona fides of such orders. However, whatever by the object of the Customs General Order, the same cannot be impugned by the petitioner unless the value of the imported goods has been assessed by the Customs Authorities and the same is found to be in disregard of the provisions of section 25 of the Customs Act. Since, admittedly no such case has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner and no valuation of the imported goods has yet been made, we do not find that the petitioner has any genuine grievance.
5. We arc aware that some of the petitions wherein such general orders issued by the Central Board of Revenue have been impugned, have been admitted by this Court and copies of two such petitions and the admission orders passed therein have been filed along with the present petition, but the present case is distinguishable admittedly as no overt action has yet been taken by the Customs authorities in the present case which may be found to be contrary to the provisions of section 25 of the Customs Act.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition was dismissed in limine by the short order as pointed out above.