ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No. D-220 of 2010

                                                                                                         

          Date                       Order with signature of Judge                           

1.For orders on CMA No. 1679/2010.

2.For orders on CMA No. 1203/2010.

 

18th February, 2010.

Mr. Zain A. Jatoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

>>>>>> <<<<<<

1.       Granted.

2.       By this application the petitioner Counsel has sought review of the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by us in which, it was noted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the assessment order and it may avail such remedy in accordance with law.

 

Learned counsel has contended that in terms of sub-section (2) of section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969 the custom value has to be determined and assessed on the basis of valuation ruling given under sub-section (1) of section 25A and against valuation ruling the applicant has applied for the review under section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 which was dismissed.  He states that the applicant has not remedy against the order of dismissal of review. He has, however, admitted that the applicant’s imported goods have been assessed in term of section 80 of the Act.

 

Upon hearing and perusal of the law, it appears that the provisions of section 25A onwards provides for manner of determination of valuation and if a party is aggrieved by a valuation ruling, a review under section 25D is provided to the Director General of Valuation. It is admitted by the learned Counsel that on import of the consignment, goods declaration was filed by the petitioner under section 79 of the Customs Act in which the petitioner itself made the assessment of goods imported by it which assessment was not accepted by the Customs officer who on the basis of valuation ruling reassessed the imported consignment. The order of re-assessment is conceded to be that of under section 80 of the Act and in terms of section 193 of the Act, an appeal is provided to the Collector of Customs (Appeal) against such re-assessment order. The order of dismissal of review application by the Director General of Valuation seems to be ancillary and incidental to the very reassessment and perhaps will merge in the order of reassessment itself, which will be open to appeal. 

 

In view of the forgoing legal position, we find no apparent mistake or any flaw floating on the face of the order dated 29.1.2010 as the same speaks of the same legal position as is mentioned above. We, therefore, find no justification to review such order and therefore, dismiss the application.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                             J U D G E

Aamir/PS                                                             J U D G E