LAHORE: An importer of polyester polar fleece fabrics has failed to substantiate transactional value on imported consignment to Customs authorities, said sources.
Also, they said, the importer could not prove that the market enquiry to determine value was carried out behind his back and without associating him to the process.
The Customs authorities had determined the value on imported consignment on the basis of deductive value method or more commonly known as market inquiry method. They said the department had duly applied valuation methods provided in the law in their regular sequential order to arrive at customs value of subject goods. The Transaction value method was found inapplicable because no substantial documents were provided by the stakeholder to prove that declared values were true transactional values.
Moreover different values were declared by different importers for same product. Identical/similar goods value methods were examined for applicability to determine customs values of subject goods.
The data provided some references, however, it was found that the same could not be solely relied upon due to absence of absolute demonstrable evidence of qualities and quantities of commercial level etc. Information available hence found inappropriate.
Accordingly, the concerned authorities conducted market inquiries, as the prices of Fleece Fabric of different kinds in the market varied significantly and were heavily dependent on quality of the Fleece fabrics and the location of the selling points or shops in the city, therefore, a number of surveys were conducted to arrive at customs values.
PRAL imports database, market inquiry and international prices through web were examined thoroughly. Consequently, deductive value method was applied to arrive at assessable customs values of Fleece Fabric of different kinds.
They further added that a large number of importers were invited by the department to share results of the market survey and those who objected to it were asked to submit evidential/supporting documents to their claims but to no avail.
The importer was of the view that the valuation methods are to be followed in a sequential manner, which was lacking in his case and therefore the order in original passed by the director general valuation is incorrect in law. However, he could not prove his stance before the relevant forum therefore, the department view was declared as valid.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024