MONDELEZ PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS (VALUATION), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI Ss — 2023 PTD 1810 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE

Case information

Citation: 2023 PTD 1810 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE
Court: Lahore High Court
Year: 2023
Reporter: PTD
Parties: MONDELEZ PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS (VALUATION), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI Ss
Subject matter: Tax & Customs
Provisions referred to: S. 25D; S. 25

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

MONDELEZ PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CUSTOMS (VALUATION), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI Ss. 25 & 25-D---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 121---Value of imported and exported goods---Revision of the value determined---Fall back method---Scope---Case revolved around the rejection of the appellant's petition under S.25D through an order-in-revision by the respondent---Validity---Appellant had submitted relevant correspondence with the exporter, bank statements indicating the payment of the transaction amount to the exporter, sales register, sales tax invoices, and other supportive documents to the respondent---However, the respondent had failed to mention these facts in the order-in-revision---Furthermore, the respondent had not addressed the genuine and just grievances of the appellant---On the contrary, respondent had treated the appellant perfunctorily---Order passed by the respondent had not met the criteria of being a speaking or judicious order and thus failed the test of judicial scrutiny---Respondent had also failed to specify which customs method, as described under Ss. 25(5), 25(6), 25(7), or 25(8), was used while issuing the impugned valuation ruling and in what "flexible manner"---Resorting to the subsequent method without exhausting the sequence indicated in S. 25 was impermissible, except for certain exceptional cases where massive group under-invoicing was suspected---Such suspicion was not visible in this case---Respondent was directed to issue a new valuation ruling based on the facts and values pertinent to the relevant period and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law---Order-in-revision was set aside. Head NotesCase Description

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD

2023 PTD 1600 SUPREME-COURTALLIED BANK LIMITED VS The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE Fiscal statute---Literal approach of interpretation---Literal approach is to b…
2023 PTD 1600 SUPREME-COURTALLIED BANK LIMITED VS The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE Ss. 2(13), 122(5a), 210 & 211---amendment of assessments---Commissioner (Inlan…
2023 PTD 1600 SUPREME-COURTALLIED BANK LIMITED VS The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE Maxim "delegatus non potest delegare"---Scope and meaning---Delegation of powe…
2023 PTD 1590 SUPREME-COURTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIES ZONE, ISLAMABAD VS FAUJI FOUNDATION LIMITED Ss. 22 & 30---'Income from other sources' or 'income from…
2023 PTD 1514 SUPREME-COURTFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division/Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad VS SUS MOTORS (PVT.) LTD. S. 81---Im…
2023 PTD 1492 SUPREME-COURTCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-IV, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, KARACHI VS AL-ABID SILK MILLS LTD., A-39, MANGHOPIR ROAD, SITE, KARACHI Fiscal sta…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English