Through this order we intend to dispose of Civil Appeal Nos,43 to 49 of 2002 filed by two importers namely Messrs Master Wool Spinners and Messrs Azeem Spinning Industries (Pvt.) Limited.
2. Both appellants imported Acrylic Dyed Tops from Mexico. The first appellant Messrs Master Wool Spinners declared the value of consignment at US $ 1.09 per k.g. while the second appellant Messrs Azeem Spinning Industries declared the same at US $ 1.14 per k.g. The Revenue framed a provisional assessm ent under section 81 of Customs Act, 1969 by enhancing the declared value to US $ 1.26 per kg in case of the first importer and at US $ 1.15 per k.g. in case of the second importer.
Subsequently on the basis of the alleged evidence of comparable cases in possession of the Revenue they finalized the assessme nts at US $ 1.65 per k.g. in case of the first appellant Messrs Master Wool Spinners and at US $ 1.75 in case of Messrs Azeem Spinnings Industries (Pvt.).
3. Before the Tribunal it was inter alia claimed that statutory provisions of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 were not followed that the Customs Authorities had assessed similar consignments at the values as low as US $ 1.08 per k.g. and US $ 1.20 per kg on 17-8-2000 and 28-11-2000. It was also claimed that the basis made for determination of the value of consignments were never confronted to the appellants.
4. Learned Tribunal, however, dis-agreed. Also it was observed that the learned counsel for the appellants was shown the evidential invoices/bills of entry and the computer print outs of consignments cleared by Karachi and Lahore Dry Ports who could not controvert them at the time of hearing before them. Lastly, that the learned counsel also could not justify his reliance upon the aforesaid comparable cases in which allegedly the Revenue had assessed identical goods at the unit value of US $ 1.08 per k.g. and US $ 1.20 per k.g. respectively on 17-8-2000 and 28-11-2000. Lastly Members of the Tribunal noted that in these cases the consignments were imported from Russia and America while the consignments in hand were imported from Mexico which clearly distinguished the case in favour of the Revenue.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we will readily allow the objection of the learned counsel for the Revenue that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and therefore, the appeals in hand filed under section 196(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 are not competent. It will be noted that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding of tact that the cases compared and relied upon by the Revenue were identical in nature qua the original as well as the nature of goods while the cases relied upon by the assessee were not so comparable. Particularly with reference to the country of original. The claim of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Revenue failed to confront the alleged comparable cases appears to be against .the record.The learned Members of the Tribunal have recorded that the appellants were duly confronted with the cases sought to be used against them. Further that even at the time of arguments before them the material earlier used by the Revenue against them was properly confronted to the learned counsel for the appellants who could not controvert the same. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the cases relied upon by the appellants could not be made basis for determination of value of the consignment imported by the appellants on account of difference in the country of original also finds support from the record.
5. Therefore, as observed earlier, we will sustain the objection against the maintainability of appeals. It needs to be noted that in matters of pure valuation of consignments a question of law can be said to have arisen only if the valuation determined by the Revenue is without any basis. A question of law in such cases will also arise if the basis made for determination of value is otherwise against any statutory provision.
6. In the present case, on the other hand, the appellant seeks remand of matter to the Revenue on the ground that comparable cases relied upon by them were not given due credit. That factual aspects of the matter having already been dealt with by the learned Tribunal no case for interference is made out.
Dismissed in limine.