MR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER.--1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Shaheen Brothers, Hall Road, Lahore, against orders-in-appeal No. 411 to 415 of 1997 dated 8.9.1997 passed by Collector Appeals, Central Zone, Lahore.
2. The thrust of the learned counsel, Mr. Tariq Najeeb Ch, is that:--
(i) The goods involved are ordinary inferior type speakers and grills of Chinese origin useable in portable decks and not car speakers as has wrongly been determined by Customs much after their clearance from the Lahore Dry port.
(ii) The Customs did not have the authority to reappraise value of these goods under section 25-B of the Customs Act, 1969 as the same were not notified thereunder. Normal price in the instant case could be determined only in terms of section 25 ibid and resort to serial No. 11820 of Valuation Manual Vol-X was nothing but illegal.
(iii) Not only that irrelevant section i.e. 25-B of the Customs Act, 1969 was invoked for arriving, at fair/normal value, it was also not disclosed as to why discount of 40% could be extended and not 95%.
(iv) As final assessm ent was not completed within 180 days or even within 270 days, therefore, the provisional assessm ent attained finality much before the so-called final assessment was made vide the Order-in-Original. By virtue of this, the provisionally assessed unit value of US$ 2.00 per pair shall hold ground as against US$ 21.60 per pair which was subsequently determined by the Adjudicating Officer.
(v) If the Customs were convinced that the appellants had grossly mis-declared value, they should either not have allowed provisional assessment in the first place or should have shown evidence to establish their stand at a subsequent stage.
3. The learned Representative of the Department strongly refutes the aforesaid assertions of the appellants. His stand is that as the appellants are cornered and have nothing substantive to say in respect of gross under-valuation of the stuff imported by them, they are resorting to one tactic or the other to wriggle out of the liability which has correctly been determined against them.
4. The Tribunal is constrained to observe that the role of those officers of Customs who allowed provisional release of the subject goods was definitely mis-leading and detrimental to the I interest of State Exchequer. As the difference in the declared (US$ 1.80 per pair) and provisionally assessed (US$ 2.00 per pair) and finally determined (US$ 21.60 per pair) unit value is alarmingly high and the arguments outforth by the learned counsel too need to be considered more pragmatically, the Tribunal deems it more appropriate to remand the case to the original authority for denovo consideration on merit. Before arriving at the decision, the learned Adjudicating Officer must formulate the issues in an un-ambiguous manner, show relevant portions of the record to the appellants, hear them patiently and then determine liabilities, in accordance with law. It is hoped that the appellants would extend full cooperation, for if they fail to do so, the learned Adjudicating Officer would be at liberty to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence already available on record. The Tribunal directs that the whole exercise must be finalised in maximum two months' period and if the case comes again before Collector Appeals, Lahore, he too should not take more than one month in disposing of the issue.
5. This order shall also apply to Appeal Case\No. CE & ST- AT/LHR/684/97. Appeals Case No. CE & ST-AT/LHR/686/97, both filed by M/s. Shaheen Brothers, Lahore and Appeal Case No. CE & ST- AT/683/97 filed by M/s. Quran Enterprises, Hall Road, Lahore, as facts ami circumstances of the three appeals are identical/similar. These cases too be adjudicated afresh by the learned Deputy Collector in line with the parameters laid above.