' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of the following Customs Appeals:-- ' Custom Appeals Nos.430 of 2002, 431 of 2002, 432 of 2002, 433 of 2002, 434 of 2002, 435 of 2002, 436 of 2002, 437 of 2002, 438 of 2002, 439 of 2002, 440 of 2002, 441 of 2002, 442 of 2002, 443 of 2002, 444 of 2002, 445 of 2002, 446 of 2002, 447 of 2002, 448 of 2002, 449 of 2002 and 450 of 2002.
2. Through these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment, dated 28-6-2002 vide which appellants' appeals against the order passed by the Deputy Collector Custom, Dryport, Mughalpura were dismissed and the orders were affirmed.
3.
3. Facts in brief are that the appellants imported goods subject-matter of these appeals, bills of entries were filed in terms of 'which the price of goods indicated was US $ 500 per metric ton. The goods were inbonded at the time of expanding the goods according to the appellants on account of the market forces their prices declined. They approached the High Court and in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No,21094 of 1996. The Custom Authorities were directed to release the goods by provisionally assessing the value of the goods in question at the rate of US$ 350 plus ,10% subject to appellants' furnishing bonds qua differential amount. The goods were accordingly released. Subsequently the Deputy Collector Customs Dry port assessed the goods in terms of the price declared in the bills of entry. In appeal filed before the learned Appellate Tribunal Custom Excise and Sales Tax, the case of the appellants was that in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act the price of the goods for the purpose of evaluation is the market price and since the market price had declined, the Custom Authorities should assess it accordingly. They also placed on record fourteen bills of entries indicating that the value of goods cleared by the Custom Authorities was not beyond US $ 350 during the period from 18-9=1996 to 7-5-1997. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeals with the observation "examination of the record also reveals that the evidence of lower value relied upon by the appellants in support of their contention pertain to their own import, which were assessed at lower value in pursuance of the interim orders, dated 29-11- 1996 passed by the Lahore High Court: Even otherwise this evidence becomes irrelevant in the wake of the evidence of higher value produced by the department including the appellants own imports, as detailed in para. 5 ante".
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has ignored the evidence produced by the appellants, that this Court while disposing of writ petition to which reference has been made in the preceding paragraphs, had passed order for provisional release taking into account market value of goods in question and this should be taken is the prices for the purposes of exercise conducted by the Customs Department.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has defended the impugned order by submitting that the Tribunal had considered the evidence led by the appellants and has given a definite finding to the effect that the nine bills of entries placed before the Tribunal were of the same period during which the goods subject-matter of these appeals was ex-bonded and those were relevant for the purposes of exercise in question. He lastly submitted that no question of law has been mooted to warrant interference in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made and have also gone through the impugned judgment.
7.
7. The foundational point of the appellant's case is that 14 bills of entries produced by the appellants before the Tribunal evidencing the decline of prices have not been considered by the Tribunal. We have gone through para. 9 of the impugned judgment and note that the Tribunal had considered this piece of evidence and had given a definite finding i,e, that those pertained to the orders passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the appellants in terms of which the goods were directed to be released on provisional assessment of their value subject to the final adjudication by the Collector. These orders could not have a binding force and the final adjudication had to proceed, on its own merit. Moreover, this aspect of the finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the appellants in grounds of appeal and this Court specifically confronted the learned counsel for the appellants with this factual aspect to which the learned counsel had no answer. It is not denied that ex-bond period of the goods subject-matter of these appeals fall within the period starting from 7-12-1996 to 22-2-1997. The nine bills of entries considered by the Appellate Tribunal for assessing the market value of the goods in question, it is not denied pertain to the same. In these circumstances we do not find any merit in these appeals to warrant interference. Even otherwise no question of law has been raised for consideration in terms of section 196 of the Custom Act. Dismissed..