Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the "Constitution"), the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to Respondents Nos.4 and 5 for assessment of duty of its imported goods on the basis of the Valuation Ruling No.2011/2025 dated 17.07.2025 (the "Valuation Ruling").
2. Briefly, the petitioner is in the business of import of various types of goods; for the purpose of the case in hand, the goods imported are ceramic and porcelain tiles (the "Consignment"), which have been imported by the petitioner from China. It is claimed by the petitioner that considering the petitioner's record of being a substantial contributor in the form of taxes and duties, the petitioner has been granted a license of a private bonded warehouse under Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1969 (the Act ). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of Customs Valuation issued Valuation Ruling No.1972 of 2025 (the "Initial Ruling") whereby the customs value of the ceramic and porcelain tiles was determined under Section 25-A of the Act; submits that being aggrieved of the Initial Ruling as disproportionate, on the higher side and in violation of the methods enshrined under Section 25 of the Act, the petitioner laid a challenge to the Initial Ruling by filing a review before Respondent No.3 in terms of Section 25D of the Act. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner was agitating its grievance through the review petition, however, the petitioner also filed/presented its Bill of Ladings ("BLs") and Goods Declarations ("GDs") at Karachi and the Consignment was accordingly transmitted for the bonded warehouse of the petitioner at Lahore as the petitioner has the license and facility of a private bonded warehouse at Lahore in terms of Section 13 of the Act; adds that prior to the ex-bonding of the Consignment from private/licensed bonded warehouse of the petitioner at Lahore, the review petition filed in terms of Section 25D of the Act was decided on 24.04.2025 by Respondent No.3 vide order in revision No.34/2025, whereby, the Initial Ruling was set aside and the matter was remanded to Director Valuation to conduct fresh exercise for issuance of valuation ruling accordingly; lastly submits that following the order dated 24.04.2025, the Director Valuation proceeded to issue the Valuation Ruling under Section 25A of the Act, therefore, the applicable valuation shall be as per the Valuation Ruling as the same is the ruling applicable on the cute of ex-bonding of Consignment from the bonded warehouse of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Customs Department has raised objection to the maintainability of this constitutional petition on two grounds; firstly, it is argued by learned counsel that since the GDs were filed at Karachi Port, therefore, in view of the law settled in the case of Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others (PLD 1997 SC 334), this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition; secondly, it is argued, that the petitioner had the statutory remedy available under Section 193, read with Section 80 of the Act, therefore, the constitutional petition in hand is not maintainable. On merits, learned counsel for the respondent-Customs Department submits that on the material date of release of Consignment from the Karachi Port, the Initial Ruling was in field and the same shall be applicable for all intents and purposes as it had not been reviewed/revised till the material date of release of Consignment from Karachi Port.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. As regards the first objection of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it is well settled that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction since the Consignment is not claimed to be cleared for home consumption under Section 79 of the Act and is subject to release/ex-bonded from the bonded warehouse of the petitioner and thus in terms of Section 30, read with 31A of the Act, the relevant port for the purpose of determining the territorial jurisdiction shall be the place from where the goods are being ex-bonded therefore, this objection of territorial jurisdiction has no basis. As regards to the second objection that the remedy under Section 193 of the Act has not been availed, the same is not tenable either, since the only question which requires determination in this case is whether the initial Valuation will be attracted, as agitated by the learned counsel for the Department, or the Valuation Ruling shall be applicable. Since there is no dispute as to the quantum of valuation nor there are any other disputed questions of fact and the only question which requires determination is that whether the Initial Ruling shall apply, as it existed on the date of filing of the GDs, or the customs duty is payable at the rate prevailing on the date of ex-bonding of consignment from bonded warehouse of the petitioner.
6. The relevant provision for the purpose of resolving the controversy at hand is Section 30 read with Section 31A of the Act. It is well settled by now that applicable customs duty shall be the one which is in vogue on the date of ex-bonding of the consignment from the bonded warehouse. The reliance is placed upon Collector of Customs and others v. Ravi Spinning Ltd. and others (1999 SCMR 412), the relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below:-

"Even if it is assumed that chargeability to the customs duty arises under section 18 of the Act as soon as the goods enter the territorial waters of Pakistan, the rates of customs duly of all items are prescribed in the 1st and 2nd Schedules to the Act, and therefore, if the imported goods are one of those mentioned in the 1st or the 2nd Schedule, the chargeability arises immediately the goods enter the territorial waters of Pakistan according to the rates prescribed in the Schedule to the Act. The chargeability to the duty having arisen any change in the rate of the customs duty or imposition of any additional duty of customs is to be determined with reference to the dates of filing of bill of entry for home consumption or taking out of the goods from bonded warehouses as provided in section 30 of the Act. Under section 30 of the Act, the rate of duty applicable to any imported goods is the duty which is applicable on the date of filing of bill of entry for home consumption under section 79 of the Act and in the case of goods cleared from bonded warehouse on the date the goods are ex-bonded from the warehouse."
[Emphasis Supplied]
7. In this respect, reliance may also be placed upon a judgment1of a learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court wherein while speaking for the Bench, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J observed:
"It is quite clear from reading of the above provision of law that in case of a imported consignment not kept in a bounded warehouse and meant for immediate clearance, the customs duty is payable at the rate chargeable on the date, the bill of entry is delivered to appropriate officer. However, where the consignment is stored in a bonded warehouse, the customs duty is payable at the rate prevailing on the date of actual removal of goods from warehouse for consumption. In the case before us, on admitted facts, the consignment was kept by the petitioner after its import at pile yard for which a licence was obtained by them under section 13 of the Customs Act. It was, therefore, a case where goods were stored in a bonded warehouse and as such customs duty was chargeable on the consignment in accordance with clause (b) of section 30 of Act.
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. In view of above, it is hereby declared that the applicable rate of customs duty shall be the one which is in field on the date of ex-bonding of petitioner's consignment from its bonded warehouse, licensed under Section 13 of the Act. The respondents are, therefore, directed to release the consignment in accordance with the customs duty per the Valuation Ruling dated 17.07.2025.
9. This petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.


 

1National Construction Co. v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 1989 Karachi 174)

Petition Allowed