' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---This further appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 assails an order of the Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad Bench, Islamabad, dated 20-1-1998.
2. The appellant imported two consignments of scrap rubber belting from Itly and filed two bills of entry for their clearance, dated 15-7-1997 and 2-8-1997. The department while discarded the declared value proceeded to assess the goods on the basis of a valuation advice circulated by Controller of Customs (Valuation) Karachi, dated 29th July, 1997. The value so circulated being higher than the declared value the appellant protested and filed a writ petition before this Court wherein on 8-9-1997 an order was made for valuation of the goods in accordance with section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with C.G.O. 1/1981 on the basis of the evidence to be produced by the petitioner as also the one available with the Customs Authorities.
3. Before that order could be conveyed to the department, through an order in original an assessm ent was made in accordance with the aforesaid advice of the Controller of Customs (Valuation), Karachi.
4. The appellant assailed the aforesaid valuation with partial success. Learned Tribunal, by way of the impugned order agreed that the subject scrap rubber belting covered by Bill of Entry No,0081 of 1997, dated 15-7-1997 should have been appraised in accordance with the practice on valuing rubber belting at Rs,6,00,000 per tonne if found non-serviceable and at the rate, of Rs,12,00,000 per tonne if found serviceable. As regards the second consignment concerning Bill of Entry No,0546 of 1997 filed on 2-8-1997 the Tribunal held the view that the department had rightly followed the advice of the said functionary for appraisement of the value. In the view of the Tribunal the previous practice having been substituted by the advice circulated by the said Collector it became binding upon the department as well as the assessee/importer. Therefore, the valuation adopted in respect of the second consignment covered by the bill of entry, dated 2-8-1997 was maintained.
Earlier the Tribunal rejected the contention of the importer that even the second consignment should have been assessed at the previous value because the letter of credit had been established prior to the change in the said practice. The reliance of the appellant on the provisions of section 30 of the Act in that regard was also found to be untenable under the law; hence this further appeal.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal which can possibly be a moot point before this Court. The contention that issuance of the aforesaid advice and the valuation of the consignments on its basis was against the provisions of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 having never been ruled upon by the Tribunal, that question cannot be said to have arisen out of their order. As noted earlier before the Tribunal the appellant sought avoidance of the application of the advice issued by the said authority merely on the ground that letters of credit in his case had been established before the issuance of the advice. In other words the vires of the advice in the perspective of section 23(14) of the Act was never agitated before them. Nor its application was resisted on the ground that a proper notification in that regard having not been issued under subsection (14) of section 25 of the Act it did not assume the status of subordinate legislation to be binding upon the department as well as the assessee/importer.
6. A question of law to be examined and answered by this Court under section 196 of the Act can only be the one which was duly ruled upon by the Tribunal. The vires of the advice issued by the Collector of Customs (Valuation) Karachi, dated 29-7-1997 having never been challenged before the. Tribunal, such question in one guise or the other cannot be agitated at this stage.
7. .