OMERJEE VAMRA, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 25A, 25D, 80, 81, 155E and 155Q Customs Rules, 2001, R107 (a) Delay of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Sections 2 (3) and 10 (3) Delay And objected to the Federal Tax Ombudsman's jurisdiction in finalizing the Non-Practical Temporary Assessment Order, on the basis that an electronic message regarding the final determination of value was apparent. And the matter was not related to duty and tax review, beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman because the complainant had neither challenged the electronic message nor the duty and tax assessment had been filed by the complainant and the department. There was no dispute between which the goods were imported under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, despite the existence of an applicable diagnostic order, which the complainant insisted was done The price determined by the price decision was much higher than the actual transaction prices. And the Directorate General (Valuation) was already considering the request of the complainants under the Value Order Directorate General (Valuation), to finalize the appropriate estimated cost under the newly issued pricing decision. Rejected complainants' requests. Refer to the Complainant's Reviewing Officer to issue a final evaluation order under section 80 of the Customs Act. 1969 Representatives approached the Director General (Valuation) for a review below the customs value determined under the diagnostic rule, but the Director General (Value) requested a review under Section 25D of the Customs Act, 1969 Refused to give the former impression of legitimacy in style
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
