1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---On 17-1-1989 when this case alongwith other connected matters came up for hearing Mr. Suleman Kassam, learned counsel for the petitioners filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. In which it was stated that in a joint meeting of Members of Chamber of Commerce and the Central Board of Revenue, it has been decided that the value declared by the importers in respect of the V-Belts imported from Korea should be accepted by the Customs Authorities. Alongwith the application learned counsel also annexed a copy of the decision of the Board of Revenue in the meeting held on 13-3-1984 at Customs House, Karachi. A copy of this application alongwith the annexures was supplied to Mr. Hamid Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents with the direction that he may obtain necessary instructions from the respondents on these documents. Mr. Hamid Hussain states that respondents have not given any instruction with regard to these documents. We have accordingly heard Mr. Suleman Kassam, Advocate.
2. ' The contention of the petitioners in all the above three cases is that the rejection of the price by the Customs Authorities in respect of the V. Belts imported by the petitioners from Korea which was entered in the bill of entry on the basis of the invoices issued by the foreign supplier was wholly arbitrary. It is urged that although the Customs Authorities have jurisdiction under section 25 of the Customs Act to determine the value of the imported goods if they are not satisfied with the value declared by the importers in the bill of entry but such assessments must be based on the basis of evidence which should be disclosed to the importers and which is considered by the Customs Authorities in arriving at the valuation under section 25 of the Act. The petitioners have specifically pleaded in the petitions that before determination of the price under section 25 of the Customs Act neither they were heard nor they were issued any notice by the Customs Authorities. It is also claimed that the valuation arrived at by the Customs Authorities in respect of the V-Belts imported by them from Korea, is not based on any evidence. No counter-affidavit has been filed in these cases nor any material has been produced before us to show the basis on which the price disclosed by the petitioners in their bill of entries was rejected by the Customs Authorities. In the case of Indus Automobile (Pvt.) Ltd. Etc. v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1988 Kar. 99 a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances declared the valuation fixed by the Customs Authorities without lawful authority and remitted the case back to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for redetermination of the price under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 after allowing an opportunity to the importers to meet the evidence considered by the Authorities against them in arriving at the valuation under section 25 of the Customs Act. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the above case and we accordingly allow all the three petitions and declare the valuation fixed by the Customs Authorities as without lawful authority. We further direct that these cases will be placed before the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for purposes of determination if the price of V-Belts imported by the petitioners from Korea in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of the Customs Act. We also direct that before determining the value of these goods under section 25 of the Customs Act, the petitioners will be shown the evidence which is used against them in these cases by the department and they will also be allowed opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal if they so desired. The petitioners will be free to place before the Assistant Collector of Customs the decision alleged to have been taken in the meeting between the Members of Chamber of Commerce and Industries and the Central Board of Revenue referred to above. There will be no order as to costs.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had furnished bank guarantee in all the above cases at the time of release of the consignments under orders of this Court. The bank guarantees will remain operative until determination of the value by the Customs Authorities as directed above.