' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.---Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment, dated 13-6-2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore vide which his appeal against the order, dated 1-11-1999 passed by the Assistant Collector, Dry Port Mughalpura, Lahore was dismissed and the latter order was affirmed. The facts in brief are that the appellant imported two consignments of the goods in question and in terms of the entries made in the Bills of Entry the declared value of those goods was 160 Pounds PMT. The goods were provisionally assessed at the rate of $ 450 and released. Subsequently the Assistant Collector Customs vide order, dated 1-11-1999 held that the normal value of the goods was 350 Pounds PMT.
In terms of the said assessm ent the appellant was directed to pay the remaining duty and taxes, i,e, Rs,67,570 (as held in the corrigendum issued). The learned Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assistant Collector Customs on the ground that the assessment made was based on an evaluation advice issued by the Collector Controller Customs (Evaluation), Karachi which was backed by the evidence of import of similar goods.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the initial value determined by the Customs Department was final assessment and could not be interfered with by the Assistant Collector Customs, that in case the Department wanted to vary the initial assessment in accordance with the Instructions issued vide C.G.O. No,25 of 1973 it should have appended the evidence being relied upon by the Department with the show-cause notice which was not done and, therefore, the orders passed were arbitrary and not sustainable in law. In support of his submissions made he relied upon a judgment at the august Supreme Court reported in 1969 SCM R 708.
3. The learned counsel for the Customs Department has defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the original order as also the appellate order are based on the evidence placed on record, that the appellant did not produce any evidence in -rebuttal and that the concurrent orders do not merit interference in this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also given our anxious considerations to the submissions made.
5. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Customs Authorities had at any stage finally concurred with the declared value of the goods as given in the Bill of Entry. Admittedly the goods were provisionally released. The Assistant Collector Customs was within his powers to make the final assessm ent in the light of the evidence produced before him which assessment was made and the evidence which found favour with the said authority, was the value invoice of the Controller of Customs (Evaluation), Karachi which it is not denied before this Court was based on the evidence of physical import of identical goods at the same value which has been determined by the Assistant Collector Customs.
' The only objection qua the said determination of value being raised by the appellant's learned counsel is that it pertains to the goods imported in the year 1997. The appellant did not produce any evidence in rebuttal either before the Assistant Collector Customs or before the Appellate Tribunal to the effect that similar goods were imported at the price declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry. The argument that he was taken by surprise by the evidence on the basis of which the value has been determined is not tenable for, two reasons. Firstly, a provisional assessment order was passed on 4-5-1999 and vide the same order an opinion was sought from the Collector Customs (Valuation), Karachi and, therefore, show-cause notice was issued. Secondly, the Assistant Collector Customs initially fixed the case for 23-9-1999. He was apprised by the valuation advice received from the Collector of Customs Valuation (Letter No,173/98-VIII/17083, dated 9-6- 1999) and on his request it was adjourned to 5-10-1999. Even otherwise the concurrent findings of fact by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction are not against the evidence on record and no question of law has been raised to warrant interference in this appeal. That being so, the appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed.