Tuesday, July 23, 2019 | ePaper

Price certified by the PSI agency is the basis for assessment

  • Print
High Court Division :
(Special Statutory Jurisdiction)

Borhanuddin J     
Sardar Md Rashed Jahangir  J
Saiful Alam (Md)
…………………………… Appellant
    vs
Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal,
Dhaka, and others………………………Respondents
Judgment
November 14th, 2018
Customs Act (IV of 1969)
Section 25A
The  importer under the PSI scheme has no obligation to prove authenticity of the actual transaction value when PSI agency certified the price under section 25A of the Act. The authority should be refrained from assessing the PSI certified goods on pick and choose basis at the whims of assessing officials rather it is incumbent upon the authority to strictly follow the valuation rules and PSI rules if it proved with sufficient and authentic evidence that the PSI certified price is not the actual transaction value. .. ..................................  (23)
Munshi, Moniruzzaman Advocate-For the Appellant.
Pratikar Chakma, DAG-For the Respondent No. 2
Judgment
Borhanuddin J :  This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-5-2013 passed by the Customs Excise & VAT Appellate Tribunal  Dhaka, respondent No. 1 herein.
2. Brief facts are that the appellant as an importer opened Letter of Credit No. 1616-1001-0233 dated  2-9-2010 for importation of 15469kg "Laptop Bag" from China at the rate of US$ 0.75 per piece under the Pre-shipment, Inspection (PSI) scheme. Before shipment, Government nominated PSI agency after inspecting the goods issued clean report of findings (CRF) dated 22-112010 certifying, amongst others, price of the goods at US$ 2.86 per piece. After arrival of the goods, the appellant through his C & F agent submitted Bill of Entry No. C-160578 dated 6-122010 for releasing the goods on payment of duties and taxes as per CRF particulars. But the Customs Authority assessed the goods fixing US$ 2.86 per piece ignoring PSI certified price. Under compelling circumstances, the importer released the goods paying duties and taxes in cash on the CRF value and furnished a Bank Guarantee for the difference of duties and taxes between CRF value and value fixed by the Customs Authority. After releasing the goods, the appellant under Rule 23 of the PSI Rules filed review application before the Review Committee. Upon hearing the stakeholders and perusing relevant papers/ documents, the Review Committee directed the Customs Authority to assess the goods on the basis of CRF value by its order dated 8-3-2011.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 Commissioner of Customs, Customs House,  Chittagong, filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal.
4. Upon hearing the parties and perusing papers/documents, Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Review Committee and thus confirmed assessment of the Customs Authority vide judgment and order dated 5-5-2013, which is impugned herein.
5. Having aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the importer as appellant preferred instant Customs Appeal under Section 196D of the Customs Act, 1969.
6. Mr. Munshi Moniruzzaman, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant imported the goods under the PSI scheme and Government nominated PSI agency issued CRF certificate under Section 25A of the Customs Act certifying quality, quantity, price, description and classification of the goods but Customs Authority assessed the goods arbitrarily without following provisions of law as such impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. He also submits that Review Committee upon hearing the concern parties and perusing papers/documents and considering previous reference value of the identical goods directed the Customs Authority to assess on the basis of CRF certified price but the Tribunal without controverting findings of the review committee passed the impugned judgment and order which is liable to be set aside. By referring valuation report as contained in the paper book learned advocate submits that commercial description of the goods as described in the CRF certificate is 'laptop bag,' Nylon, Assorted size 832.92 dozen and price of the identical goods as shown in valuation report is US$ 0.73 per piece close to invoice value at the rate of US$ 0.75 per piece and Government nominated PSI agency after inspecting the goods certified price at the rate of US$ 1.30 per piece but the Tribunal without applying its judicial mind passed the impugned judgment and order ignoring the valuation report supplied by the Customs Authority and findings of the review committee as such impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. To substantiate his argument learned advocate refers Rule 5 and 9 of the Pre-shipment inspection (PSI) Rules.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Pratikar Chakma learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that from the valuation report as contained in the paper book it appears that price of the laptop bag is US$ 2.86 per piece and thus Customs Authority assessed the goods at the value found in data base which is confirmed by the Tribunal as such there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. He also submits that finding of the review committee is not based on the observation of the committee as such Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order after .perusing price of the identical goods during contemporary period. Learned Deputy Attorney-General further submits that Rule 22(3) of the PSI Rules empowers the customs authority to determine price of the goods as such Tribunal justly and legally passed the impugned judgment and order.
8. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned Deputy Attorney-General for the respondent No.2. Perused the paper book and   relevant papers/documents contained therein.
9. It appears that invoice value of  the imported goods is US$ 0.75 per piece and the PSI agency certified the price at US$ 1.20 per  piece but the Customs Authority/determined price of the goods at US$ 2.86 per piece. It may be mentioned here that PSI agency is nominated by the Government. The importer has no choice/option to appoint another PSI agency other than the one nominated by the Government. Section 25A  of the Customs Act provides that the quality, quantity price, description and classification certified by the PSI agency shall be the basis for assessment. In the case underhand, Government nominated PSI agency Bureau Veritas certified, amongst other, price of the imported goods.
10. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the review committee and the Tribunal. On perusal of the order pass by the Review Committee, it appears that in arriving its finding review committee considered contemporary reference value of the identical goods. Relevant portion of the order  is quoted hereinunder:
” পিএস আই সং¯'া তাঁর প্রত্যায়িত মূল্যের স্বপক্ষে রেফারেন্স সিআরএফ দাখিল করেন । তাতে দেখা যায় , পূর্বে কাষ্টমস হাউস কর্ত"পক্ষ একই পণ্য সি. আর. এফ প্রত্যায়িত মূল্যে শুল্কায়ন করেছেন । যার রেফারেন্স নং বিডি ১০৩১ এ ৯৪৯ তারিখ ২৯-১০-২০১০ইং বিডিএইচ ২০১০ ২২৬৫০ ১সি তারিখ ঃ ১৩-৭-২০১০ইং ।
11. Though the Tribunal observed that CRF certified price is not tallied with the contemporary price of identical goods but did not elaborate its observation by referring any particular case. From the valuation report supplied by the customs authority contained in the paper book it appears that price of the LAPTOP BAG ADDEL: ACBCB27 released through bill of entry dated 5-10-2010 was US$ 2.86 per piece and in the same valuation report price of the 'LAPTOP BAG' NYLON ASSORTED SIZE B325, 382 released through bill of entry dated 6-12-2010 was US$ 0.73 per piece.
12. National Board of Revenue under Section 219 read with section 25A of the Custom Act made 'Valuation rules' to determine value of the imported goods  subject to condition specified in the rules.
.
13. Rule 5(4) of the Valuation Rules relating to identical goods runs as follows:
” এই বিধির অধীন অভিন্ন পণ্যের একাধিক বিনিময় মূল্য পাওয়া গেলে উহাদের মধ্যে সর্বাপেক্ষা কম বিনিময় মূল্যের ভিত্তিতে আমদানিকৃত পণ্যের মূল্য নির্ধারণ করিতে হইবে ।”
১৪. অমধরহ, জঁষব ৯(২) ড়ভ ঃযব ঠধষঁধঃরড়হ জঁষবং ঢ়ৎড়ারফবং ঃযধঃ,
৯(২) এই আইনে যাহা কিছুই থাকুক না কেন নিম্মবর্ণিত যে কোন বিষয়ের ভিত্তিতে কোন আমদানিকৃত পণ্যের মূল্য নির্ধারণ করা যাইবে না, যথাঃ-
(ক) -------------------------------------------
(খ) মূল্য নির্ধারণের উদ্দেশ্যে দুইটি বিকল্প মূল্যের মধ্যে সর্বো"চ মূল্য ।
(গ)--------------------------------------
(ঘ)--------------------------------------
(ঙ)---------------------------------------
(চ)---------------------------------------
(ছ)---------------------------------------   
15. Commercial description of the imported goods described in the CRF certificate is 'LAPTOP BAG, NYLON ASSORTED SIZE, 832, 92 DOZ'. Which is almost identical with the description of the goods described in the valuation report released through bill of entry dated 6-12-2010 at a price of US$ 0.73 per piece.
16. Learned Deputy Attorney-General emphasis much on Rule 22(3) of the PSI Rules which is as follows:
”২২। প্রত্যয়নপত্রের ব্যবহার
(১)-------------------------------------------
(২)--------------------------------------------
(৩) প্রাপ্ত সুস্পষ্ট তথ্য প্রমাণের ভিত্তিতে শুল্কায়নকালে যদি এ মর্মে নিশ্চিৎ হওয়া যায় যে, পরিদর্শন সং¯'া কর্ত"ক প্রত্যয়িত মূল্য পণ্যের বিনিময় মূল্য নয়, তাহলে মূল্যায়ন বিধিমালা অনুযায়ী সহকারী কমিশনারের নিম্নে নহেন  এমন কর্মকর্তার অনুমোদন সাপেক্ষে যথাযথ বিনিময় মূল্য নির্ধারণ পূর্বক শুল্কায়ন করতে হবে ।”    
17.  Above provision clearly states that before ignoring price certified by the PSI agency, the Customs Authority must arrive at a clear finding on the basis of definite information based on authentic evidence that the value certified by the PSI agency is not the actual transaction value.
18. The Government appoints pre-shipment inspection agencies under Section 25A of the Customs Act.  Sub-section (2) of Section 25A clearly provides that:
"The Government may, by notification in  the official gazette, declare that the quality, quantity, price, description and customs classification of any goods verified and certified in the prescribed manner by a pre-shipment  inspection agency shall be accepted as the basis for assessment."
19. Again, Sub-section (3) of Section 25A provides that:
"For the purposes of this section, "price" means value of the goods determined in accordance with sub-section (I) and (2) of Section 25.
20. From the above, it is clear that Section 25A in an unequivocal language declares that the price certified by the PSI agency shall be accepted as the basis for assessment and sub-section (2) of Section 25A provides that the price of the goods is to be determined in accordance with the rule made in this behalf.
21. In appointing pre-shipment agencies, the Government divided the globe in six parts and nominated one PSI agency of its choice for each part and thereby compelled the importer to collect certificate from the PSI agency nominated by the Government. The importer has no choice/option but to collect the CRF certificate from the Government nominated only PSI agency for that part of the globe from where the importer intends to import. In consideration of the same, Sub-section (2) of Section 25A mandate that the price certified by the PSI agency shall be basis for the assessment and Section 25(2) provides that in respect of imported goods price of the goods shall be determined in accordance with the valuation rules made by the National Board of Revenue.
22.  From the provisions of Rule 5 and 9 of the valuation rules it is clear that if there is more than one value of an identical good than the lowest value shall be the basis for assessment and Rule 22(3) of the PSI rules mandate that to ignore the price certified by the PSI agency in incumbent upon the customs authority to prove that the CRF certified price is not the actual transaction value. From the note sheet supplied by the learned Deputy Attorney-General at the time of hearing without filing any affidavit, it is evident that the customs authority determined value of the imported goods on the basis of valuation report as quoted above but there is nothing in the note sheet that the customs authority has definite information based on authentic evidence that the value certified by the PSI agency is not the actual transaction value.
23. To discard PSI certified  Value the customs authority must prove with authentic evidence that the value certified by the PSI agency is in connivance with the importer to  evade revenue but it appears from the valuation report supplied by the customs authority as well as from  the order of the Review Committee that the customs authority determined value of the  goods ignoring CRF certificate by taking  the recourse of  pick and choose, in other words at the whims of the concern assessing official with an ulterior  motive which is also apparent from the valuation  report supplied by the customs authority contained in the paper book. On plain recording of Section 25A with Section 2S  of the-Customs Act along with valuation rules and PSI rules, we find no earthly reason to discard the price Certified by the PSI  agency if customs authority cannot prove  with sufficient evidence that the value determined by the PSI agency is not the actual transaction value and such burden of prove lies upon the custom authority. The importer under the PSI scheme has no obligation to prove authenticity of the actual transaction value when PSI agency certified the price under Section 25A of the Customs Act. The customs authority should be refrained from assessing the PSI certified goods on pick and choose basis at the whims of assessing officials rather it is incumbent upon the authority to strictly follow the valuation rules and PSI rules if it is proved with sufficient and authentic evidence that the PSI certified price is not the actual transaction value.
24. A citizen of the country cannot be taxed on the whims of a section of unscrupulous assessing officials. We believe that most of the officials are honest and perform their duties diligently in accordance with law.
25. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, we are inclined to allow the appeal.
26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
27. Judgment and order dated 5-5-2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, under Nothi No. CEVT/Case (Cus)-473/2011 is set aside and the order dated 8-3-2011 passed by the Review Committee is hereby restored.
28. The respondent No. 2 Commissioner of Customs (Import), Customs House, Chittagong, is directed to assess the goods on the basis of CRF certified price and refund the Bank Guarantee No. 1 of 2011 dated 10-1-2011 issued by the NCC Bank, Agrabad Branch, Chittagong, to the appellant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
29. Send down records to the Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, alongwith a copy of this judgment at once.
Communicate a copy of this judgment to the commissioner of Customs (Import), Customs House, Chittagong, at once.

More News For this Category

Section 55 Of The VAT Act

(From previous issue) :21. In Sekandar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Customs Excise and VAT reported in 63 DLR 272 while resolving the issue as to issuing demand notice

Land-locked Property

Appellate Division : (Civil) Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J     Md Imman Ali  J     AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury J Anowara……………………….………….Appellants               vsAbdul Rab Hawlader and another…………………......................RespondentsJudgment August 5th, 2015 Easement Act

Aggrieved Can Appeal Against Judgment By 90 Days

High Court Division :(Special Statutory Jurisdiction) Borhanuddin J Sardar Md Rashed Jahangir J Mohammad Hanif………..…….Appellant           vs Customs, Excise and VAT Appellate TribunalDhaka, and others………..…Respondents    Judgment     November 20th

Failure of Repayment

(From previous issue) :8. Subsequently, the names of the petitioners were classified in the lists of CIB and the petitioners challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 7161-62 of 2017 &

Section 55 Of The VAT Act

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub J SM Maniruzzaman J BRAC Bank Limited ... ................. Petitioner……………………………VS National Board of Revenue and others…….………Respondents Judgment November 7th, 2018 Constitution of

Change in Waqf Management

(From previous issue) 19. The one and only core ground taken by the writ petitioner is that the inquiry officer (respondent No.4) without notifying the petitioner conducted the alleged

Failure of Repayment

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam J Mohammad Ali J Nassa Tipei Spinners Limited and others .............Petitioners                    vs     Judgment February 26th, 2019 Bangladesh 

Code Of Criminal Procedure

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) ANM Bashir Ullah   J Mustafa Zaman Islam J  Sumon Ahmed (Md) alias Sumon-----------Accused-Petitioner             vs State--------Respondent Judgment July 24th, 2018     Code of

Change in Waqf Management

High Court Division : (Special Original Jurisdiction) Moyeenul Islam  Chowdhury J Md Ashraful Kamal J Habib Ahmed Shukur     Morshed……………Petitioner         vs  Waqf Administrator Bangladesh and others……………. Respondents JudgmentSeptember

Sale And Distribution Of Proceeds

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)Quazi Reza-ul Hoque JMohammad Ullah JAbdul Hai Munshi...................Petitioner vsDeputy General Manager, Sonali Bank Limited, Dhaka and 3 (three) others. Opposite- Parties Code of Civil