MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR LIMITED versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD
Sections 25 and 25b Section RO 356 (KE) Date 29 10 1991 Import Pricing Principle Customs authorities discretion in the cost of goods, the appellant company has contracted with a foreign company for commercial value / import from Thailand. The Customs Department issued a notification at the price of 2 292 50 per metric ton of sugar, Section RO 356 (KE) on 29 199 1991 as required to import the imported sugar (ITP) of sugar imported from Thailand. On the arrival of 331 per metric ton of goods fixed at US $, the appellant filed a bill of entry, announcing the value of the consignment at the contract price, customs officials said. Wayne ignored that duty should be fixed at the cost of the contract and the duty imposed on the Import Trade Price met cost of US $ 331 per metric ton of the Customs Act 1969 (which was in force at that time). Gave the Central Board of Revenue, or an officer authorized by it, to set the price. Goods are considered as reasonable at that price. Based on this section, the Customs Department issued a notification on providing Thailand-based Chinese Import Trade Price I (ITP) on the basis of Article 25 of the Customs Act 1969. The price on which goods were to be imported or exported was based on the concept of the section section (as it was then enforced) \ common value as defined by the value of goods through contracts between buyers. Was disclosed and used in section 25B of the Customs Act, 1969, reflecting the arm's length transaction between independent buyers and sellers working in the open market.
