JUDGMENT: MR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM, MEMBER TECHNICAL.--(1). This appeal has been filed by the Collector of Customs, Appraisement Collectorate, Lahore against orders in appeal No, 339 to 354/98, dated 28th August, 1998 passed by Collector (Appeals) Central Zone, Lahore.
2. The issue involved in this case is the determination of normal price under the provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 in respect of plastic waste and scrap with moisture/ soiling imported by M/s. South East Trading, Lahore vide 16 Bills of Entry which are available on record.
3. M/s. South East Trading, Lahore, Respondent No, 2 in the present appeal, maintain that the declaration of US $ 100 per metric ton made by them in respect of the subject goods is correct and that this should have been accepted as normal price in terms of the para-meters laid down under the provisions of law contained in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 by the learned Adjudicating Officer who arbitrarily enhanced it to US $ 178 per M.T. As customs itself had been releasing identical goods at the unit price of 102 per M.T. in the past, learned Collector (Appeals), Lahore was justified in re-ordering the assessme nt of the goods imported by them as well at this price. To substantiate their version, they have drawn attention of the Tribunal to the evidence incorporated by learned Collector Appeals in para 2 of the impugned order.
4. The prayer of M/s. South East Trading is that as the original authority had exhibited high- handedness in the matter, the impugned orders may be confirmed as such and the appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Lahore rejected so that they are spared of the un-warranted harassment to which they were originally subjected.
5. The stand of the appellant however is that the first appellate authority had acted contrary to the spirit of law as contained in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 which lays down that for the purpose of assessm ent, the criterion has to be the normal price as is envisaged at the given point of time and not the one which was prevailing at a remote period of time. No doubt, customs had been releasing identical goods at the unit price of US $ 102 per metric ton in the past but when the subject goods were imported, the normal price was US $ 178 per metric ton and not US $ 102 per M.T. as is evident from the assessm ent finalized in respect of Bills of Entry No, 6700, dated 07.06.1997 No, 6346, dated 19.05.1997 and No, 6564, dated 29.05.1997 which are available at the Lahore Dry Port.
6. The prayer of the appellant is that the orders passed by the first appellate authority may be reversed for otherwise the whole system of assessment/appraisement would be jeopardised and the national exchequer subjected to un-bearable loss of revenue.
7. We have seen the case record, heard both sides in detail, addressed ourselves to the relevant provisions of law contained in Section 25 of the Customs, Act, 1969 and have come to the conclusion that as the authorities of customs at Lahore have themselves been constantly releasing identical/similar goods at the unit price of U.S. Dollars 102 per metric ton, it was unfair on their part to suddenly enhance it to U.S. Dollars 178 per metric ton in respect of the goods imported by Respondent No,
2. We, therefore, hold that the learned Collector Appeals, Lahore was justified in reversing the orders already passed and directing that assessment in respect of the subject goods be finalized at the unit value of U.S. $ 102 per metric ton instead of U.S. $ 178 per metric ton. As we see no infirmity or illegality in his orders, the same are confirmed and the appeal rejected because the plea of the Collector Customs, Lahore contained therein is too sketchy, evasive and slippery to stand the test of judicial scrutiny.