ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court reserved judgment whether the local manufacturers can approach the valuation committee and whether the Director General, Customs Valuation can substitute the findings of the valuation committee constituted under Section 25A of the Act.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb on Thursday heard the appeals of Director General of Customs Valuation and others against the Sindh High Court (SHC) judgment.
The chief justice directed the counsels of all the parties to file their written submission before 10th April. He said the question whether Section 25 takes priority over Section 25A of the Act while determining the value of the product imported has been answered by the apex court.
Import of 104 types of branded chocolates: Customs values revised
The SC bench on December 6, 2023 had framed three questions;
i. The methodology to be adopted when invoking the Sections 25 and 25A of the Customs Act, 1969, whether Section 25 takes priority over Section 25A of the Act while determining the value of the product imported.
ii. Whether the local manufacturers can approach and participate before the Valuation Committee constituted under Section 25A of the Act.
iii. Whether the Director General, Customs Valuation can substitute the findings of the Valuation Committee under Section 25D of the Act.
The bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on 9th January 2024 had decided the first question. It noted that the two judgments of the High Courts (SHC and LHC) in the cases of Sadia Jabbar vs federation and Messers Goodwill Traders, Karachi vs federation have answered it. “No jurisdictional error, illegality or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgments has been pointed out, therefore they do not warrant any interference,” it added.
Advocate Ghulam Haider Sheikh, representing a number of importers and manufacturers, argued that Director General of Customs Valuation has power to maintain the valuation by the Director Valuation or reject it, but does not have authority to determine the value itself, otherwise, the role of Director Valuation would become redundant. He then cited the judgment of Sadia Jabbar in support of his arguments. He argued the director general’s jurisdiction was limited only to making a decision to this extent and no more, certainly, he could neither increase nor decrease the value.
The remedy for the importer only lay by way of a petition under Section 25D, the counsel submitted that this could be availed even if there were conflicting determinations by the Director Valuation and the Collector, which conflict had not yet been resolved insofar as a local manufacturer was concerned it had no standing at all, either in terms of Section 25A or Section 25D. These provisions applied only to importers or exporters.
The Member Customs informed the bench that the Director General under Section 25D of the Customs Act has the power to review the value determined by the Collector of Customs or Director of Valuation in revision petition filed before him within thirty days from the date of determination of customs value.
The SHC judgment had maintained that the Director General has no power to determine a customs value for any goods in addition to or other than those for which a valuation ruling has been issued under Section 25A. “Any such purported determination is void,” the judgment said.
Regarding whether the local manufacturers can approach the Valuation Committee, SHC verdict stated that when the Director Valuation or the Collector of Customs or the Director General are acting in terms of section 25A and/or section 25D, what they are doing is only establishing the value of the imported good for a specific purpose. Under these sections they have no concern with the levy of customs duties or other taxes.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments