SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- The petitioner imported 345 square meters unpolished random white Carrara marbles slabs from Italy, at the declared invoice value of U.S. $16 per square meter. The goods arrived in Karachi in October, 1989 and Bill of Entry was filed on 29-10-1989. The respondent No,4 made a provisional assessm ent of Custom Duty under section 81 of the Customs Act at the rate of U.S. $ 35 per square metre and upon furnishing appropriate guarantee the goods were cleared.
2. At the time of final assessm ent of duty the petitioner received a show-cause notice alleging that they had misdeclared the value of the imported goods and according to the respondents the correct value of the goods ought to be 23 Dollars per square metre. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice and by an order, dated 13-3-1990 the respondent No,4 held that assessm ent of taxes be finalised on the basis of the evidence to the effect that the correct value of the goods was $ 23 per square metre. Reliance was placed upon an invoice from the same supplier addressed to another buyer i,e, Mahboob Enterprises, Karachi for the same goads on 23- 6-1988. Accordingly the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of Custom duty as well as penalty equivalent to 20% of the ascertained value of goods. Appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed and hence the petitioner approached this Court under Article 199 of the. Constitution.
3. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, argued that the Tribunals in the hierarchy under the Customs Act did not take into consideration all relevant evidence available with them for the purpose of determining the normal value of the imported goods but only relied upon a solitary invoice which, according to him, was irrelevant for the purpose of determining normal value under section 25 of the Customs Act. He drew our attention to a letter, dated 16-10- 1989 from Commercial Councilor Embassy of Pakistan, Italy addressed to the Controller of Customs Valuation, Government of Pakistan, the contents whereof may be reproduced as under:-- .. Please refer to your Letter No,I/01/89-I(B)/18606, dated 18th September, 1989.
(2) The price has been officially verified and it has been stated by the suppliers Messrs Bocanglia Marmi SRL that:
(a) Price varies considerably depending on quality, size of order and terms of payment.
(b) Exports to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan markets are usually of a cheap variety. For orders received against irrevocable L/C payable at Sight, white Carrara unpolished Marble Slabs are sold at an average price of U.S. $ 186 per sq. mt."
4. The existence of this letter has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit.
Nevertheless as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner it has not been mentioned in any of the orders passed by Customs Authorities. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan further contended that in Shasta Autos v. Government of Pakistan 1991 M LD 1582 a Division Bench of this Court had held that an invoice issued in 1985 was not sufficient to determine the normal price of goods in respect whereof a bill of entry was filed in 1987.
5. Without going into question as to probable value of the documents relied upon by the respondents in determining the normal value of the imported goods we are inclined to hold that for the purpose of determining such value the authorities are required to take into consideration all relevant evidence that is available before them. Indeed we do not consider it to be the function of this Court to comment upon the veracity of the information contained in the letter from the Commercial Counselor in Italy, but since such information was sought by the Customs Authorities it was necessary for such authorities to take it into consideration and pass an order determining normal value upon objective consideration of all relevant evidence available. In view of the foregoing we allow this petition, set aside the impugned orders of the respondents and remand the matter to respondent No,4 for fresh determination in accordance with law. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner will remain in operative till final orders are passed by the respondent No,4.