' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.--Alnoor Industries petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of special art silk textiles and is also a registered exporter. On 26-6-1980 a Notification was issued by the Central Board of Revenue, respondent No, 4, allowing repayment of customs duty on 45% of F.O.B. Value on the dyed or printed fabrics of man-made yarn (art silk fabrics). For the purpose of calculation of the value of any export goods a formula is given in subsection (4) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1%9 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the value of any export goods shall be taken to be a normal price, that is to say, the price which they would fetch, at the prescribed time, on a sale in open market for exportation to the country to which the goods are consigned between a seller and a buyer independent of each other. In the month of November, 1980 the petitioner exported nine consignments of art silk fabrics after calculating the said 45% rebate in accordance with the aforesaid formula. The petitioner company was allowed the aforesaid rebate in respect of six consignments and the declared value of the goods with regard thereto was also accepted.
However, claim for rebate for the other three consignments was withheld. The petitioner then came to know that the respondent No 4 had, by a letter dated 15-12-1980, directed the Customs Authorities to constitute a Valuation Committee to which all the cases involving valuation disputes shall he referred for examination, and the said committee shall give its verdict after considering all aspects of the rase. It transpires that the said Valuation Committee had examined the goods and documents of the petitioner and had given its verdict whereupon the petitioner was given three show-cause notices in the year 1981 wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had over- invoiced and overpriced its goods and had illegally claimed excess rebate and had claimed and been paid rebate in excess of the actual dues. By the writ petition in hand the petitioner has challenged the constitution of the Valuation Committee as illegal, without lawful authority and have also challenged the show-cause notices as being without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. In their comments it was alleged by the respondents that there were numerous complaints from the exporters about Customs officials for arbitrary reduction in the C & F/F.O.B. Value of export commodities under claim of rebate and in consultation with All Pakistan Art Silk Association a Valuation Committee was constituted comprising of departmental officials as well as the representatives of the Art Silk Trade in order to avoid arbitrariness and a tendency to over-invoice goods and that the action on the report of the Committee was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
3. The aforesaid facts have not been controverted by any of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that whenever in a case of the nature in hand a dispute arose about over-invoicing or under-invoicing, although both the practices were offences under section 32 of the Act, but adjudication was made by the Customs Authorities under the provisions of section 179 of the Act. He further contended that in respect of the dispute which had arisen regarding the three consignments the Deputy Collector of Customs was competent to adjudicate upon the matter in accordance with clause (2) of section 179 of the Act and the Deputy Collector could determine the price of the art silk yarn being exported and could also determine the rebate which was to be admissible to the petitioner and that the Act nowhere contemplated the constitution of the Valuation Committee.
4. We have very seriously considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Although there is no provision in the Act for the constitution of the Valuation Committee but the respondents in their comments had given justification for the constitution of this Committee because the exporters had complained about the arbitrary determination of price by the Customs officials. The representatives of the Art Silk Yarn Manufactures Association were also associated with the Valuation Committee and the duty performed by this Committee was of only an advisory nature. Although there is no provision in the Act about the formation of such a Commmittee yet it was constituted on the complaint of the manufacturers and exporters of art silk yarn, inclusive of the petitioner and it had their representatives on it as well and also any action which was taken as a consequence of the report of this Committee was taken by the authorities which were competent to take action under the Act and proper legal procedure was being followed in this respect. Copies of all the show-cause notices which were issued to the petitioner have been annexed with the writ petition, and they clearly indicate that they had originated from the Customs Authorities and not from the Valuation Committee. As such it was a Committee of only an advisory nature and was not itself taking any action against any exporter which was to be taken by the Customs Authorities under the Act.
5. As such we do not find any fault with the constitution of the Valuation Committee and we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the Valuation Committee is not performing any statutory duty it is unexceptionable on any ground whatsoever.
We do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.