' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenges the valuation of blank video cassettes E-180 imported from Hong Kong by the Collector of Customs, Lahore, in pursuance of Notification No 207(KE)89, dated 25-11-1939, issued by the Controller of Customs (Valuation).
2. Relying on Phassco Hardware Co. v. The Government of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Kar. 621). Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Khan argued that the Central Board of Revenue has fixed the valuation of the blank video cassettes imported by the petitioner from Hong Kong arbitrarily, inasmuch as the imported value of the cassettes in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, is US$ 1.35 per piece, whereas it has been assessed US $ 2.10. He further argued that there is no nexus with the notification and the actual import value. Consequently, the petitioner made a representation against the impugned valuation vide application dated 4-71990 before the Central Board of Revenue requesting therein to provide him with the evidence/reasons on the basis of which the impugned valuation has been fixed, but no action was taken in regard thereto. No written statement has been filed by respondents to the writ petition. However, in the report filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Valuation), Lahore, it is stated that the ratio laid down in Phassco Hardware Company (Supra) is not attracted to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the said firm was the sole agent of TDK in Pakistan and have been issued values lip on the basis of ten per cent load, on FOB price plus other incidental charges vide valueslip No,27/87, dated 13-9-1987, whereas in the instant case the ITP on blank video cassettes was refixed on the basis of SRO No,13(KE)/91, dated 3-1-1991 on the basis of telex quaries and Conteona Inspection Certificate of Value. It is also stated in the report that normally an ITP of a item is fixed on the basis of (i) Data collected from import invoices, (ii) queries made through intelligence sources in form of letter/telex to the suppliers, (iii) verification of prices in country of export and (iv) comparison of local selling prices with import prices. In the instant case, however Mr. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, the learned Deputy Attorney-General, is unable to produce the material on the basis of which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Ahmad Ranjha, Assistant Collector Customs (Valuation) submitted that the relevant record is at the Controller of Customs Office, Karachi.
3. Be that as it may and in the interest of expeditious disposal of the matter, I direct Controller of Customs Valuation, Karachi, to examine afresh the representation of the petitioner Annex. `P-5' and `P-6' to the Writ Petition after providing him adequate opportunity of being heard as well as allowing him to inspect the material on the basis of which the impugned valuation has been made.
The petitioner is directed to appear before him on 2nd of June, 1991.
With this observation the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.