MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM MEMBER, (JUDICIAL).- This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 48/1999, dated 1.11.1999 passed by the Assistant Collector, Customs Dry Port, Mughalpura, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant. M/s. Ravi Autos (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore imported two consignments of "steel strips" from England at the declared value of Pound 160/M.T. And sought clearance thereof vide bills of entry No. 4847 and 4848 both dated 4.5.1999. Suspecting that the declared value of goods was lower than the normal value the assessment was made provisionally @ US $ 450/MT in terms of section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the matter was referred to Valuation Department for advice. The Controller of Customs (Valuation) vide valuation advice No. 333/99, dated 3.7.1999 intimated normal value of goods at Pound 350/MT which was equivalent to US$ 500/PMT. The appellant was accordingly served with a notice by the Adjudicating Officer calling upon it to show cause as to why differential amount of duty and taxes amounting to Rs.67,570/- be not recovered from it. The appellant resisted the show-cause notice but the learned Adjudicating Officer held it liable to pay aforesaid amount of duty and taxes vide impugned order.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector, the appellant has filed this appeal whereby the impugned order has been challenged inter alia, on the grounds that the declared invoice price i.e. Pound 160/MT was fair and normal price prevailing in the country of export within the meaning of Section 25 of the Customs Act; that the goods were arbitrarily assessed at the enhanced price of US$ 500/MT u/S. 81 of the Customs Act and that the assessable value was further enhanced to US $ 500/MT vide impugned order on the basis of a valuation advice quoted therein without confronting the appellant with the evidence of physical import of the goods at higher value. Learned counsel for the appellant quoted various case-law in support of his contention.
4. The learned Departmental Representative defended the impugned order and placed on record photocopies of evidential invoice/bill of entry relied upon by the Controller of Customs (Valuation) while issuing the valuation advice.
5. I have examined the case record and considered the submissions made by the appellant. The assessm ent finalized by the learned Adjudicating Officer vide impugned order at the value of US$500/MT is based on a valuation advice issued by the Controller of Customs 'Valuation), Karachi which is backed by evidence of physical import of identical goods at the aforesaid value. Copies of evidential bill of entry and invoices have been seen by the learned counsel for the appellant in the Court, In view of the valuation advice issued by the Controller of Customs (Valuation) Karachi and the evidence of physical import of identical goods produced by the department, there is no doubt that the assessm ent made vide impugned order and the resultant demand of duty and taxes adjudged therein is correct and according to law. The appeal is accordingly rejected being without merit.