TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.---Appellant imported the Air-Conditioner subject-matter of this appeal vide Bills of Entry No,3101 dated 7-2-1995 and No,04184 dated 16-4-1995 at the declared value of US$275 per unit. The PSI company after the requisite investigation abroad assessed the value as US$295. The appellant challenged the afore-referred assessment through Writ Petition No,59873 of 1995. The goods were directed to be released on declared value but subject to furnishing bank guarantee with regard to the differentialamount. While disposing of the petition this Court in Writ Petition No,13215 of 1996 directed the Custom Authorities to determine the value of goods in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act and in the light of the evidence on record. The Deputy Collector Customs. Assessed the value of the goods US$ 295 per unit keeping in view the already issued CRF and the value of goods or Far East era Origin. This order was challenged before the Custom Tribunal who dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order dated 15-4-2002 on the ground "he has no doubt, not accepted the value declared by the appellant-company but at the same time he has not adhered to the value fixed by CRF. Since he has followed an equitable via media no fault can be found with impugned order" Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the concurrent orders on the ground that the same are arbitrary, that Adjudicating Officer did not issue any notice to the appellant before assessing the goods, that both the Tribunals below have not considered the evidence which the appellant wanted to rely on and that the value assessed is rather excessive.
2. Learned counsel for the Custom Department is stated to be busy before the august Supreme Court at Islamabad. Since we have heard appellant's counsel we are not inclined to adjourn it at any Turther and proceed to decide it on merit. In para 5 of the order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Officer there is a specific observation to the effect that "in this case the importer was provided an opportunity for hearing and was requested to produce any material evidence in support of their claim for acceptance of declared value but he failed to substantiate his claim". This finding has neither been challenged in the .Grounds of appeal before the Tribunal nor in the body of this petition. No reference has been made in the body of appeal either as to what evidence appellant wanted to produce in support of his claim that the declared value should be accepted by the respondent-Department. It is not denied that the Courts below have determined the value after considering the evidence available i,e, the CRF value and the value of goods or Far East era Origin.
3. The Adjudicating Officer had prepared a chart of how he calculated the value, which is as under:-- S.No. B/E No & DateQuantity Declared valueCRF already assessedValue assessed afresh in terms of section 26 as per High Court orderDifference Total Taxes involved
01. 3101 7.2.95384 UnitUS$ 275 UnitUS$ 295 UnitUS$ 295 UnitUS$ Unit Rs.2,07,845
02. 4184 16.4.951920 UnitUS$ 275 UnitUS$ 329.69 UnitUS$ 295 UnitUS$ 20 Pc x 1920 US$ 38400.KRs.10,39,844 In the afore-referred circumstances it cannot be argued that the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer or by the Appellate Tribunal are arbitrary. This is an appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, and would be maintainable only if a question of law has been raised. No question of law is discernible to warrant interference in appeal. The appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed.