Tuesday October 19, 2021

FBR jacks up valuation rates of mobile accessories

ISLAMABAD: Just ahead of upcoming budget, the FBR has jacked up customs valuation rates of mobile accessories substantially such as on import of mobile charger with wire, mobile charger without wire, wireless charger pad/stand, car charger (single pin and multiple pins), desk top battery, mobile battery, selfie sticks and on many other items.

According to the customs valuation rulings issued by the FBR on June 2, 2020, the new valuation of mobile charger with wire for different specification ranges on per piece basis from $1.38 to $2.47. On mobile charger without wire, the new customs valuation ranges from $0.35 to $1.45 on per piece basis. The wireless charger pad/stand, the valuation rate stands at $5.43, car charger (single pin) at rate of $1.99, car charger (multiple pins) at rate of $2.50, desk top battery charger at rate of $1.19 and mobile battery $2.35 per piece basis.

On power bank/ battery pack/portable battery bank (12000mAh) the per piece valuation ranges from $3.53 to $7.34 on different specifications, selfie stick without remote control $3.44, selfie stick with remote control $5.53 per piece, casing/pouch (plastic/artificial leather) $1.4 per piece, casing pouch with pure leather $5.71 per piece, glass protector $2.17. The valuation rate on mobile hands free phone ranges from $5.04 to $12.15 per piece on different specifications and on mobile headphones from $1.21 to $8.37.

The importers have termed higher valuation highly unjustified decision of the FBR as they claimed that the valuation rates were increased by 100 times. “We have never seen such unjustified increase in valuation rates of mobile accessories,” they said and added that their imported containers got stuck up at imports because no one would be able to clear their containers by paying such higher valuation rates. They were of the view that such higher valuation of mobile accessories would pave the way for increasing smuggling menace in this country and would cause loss to the revenues of the government.

According to customs valuation ruling number 1448/2020 issued by the FBR on June 2, 2020, that earlier customs values of mobile accessories were determined under section 25-A of the Customs Act 1969 vide valuation ruling number 908/2016 dated 12-8-2016. The valuation ruling was very old and values in the international market had shown upward trends. Moreover, a number of new accessories had also been introduced in the market. Therefore, an exercise was initiated to determine the customs valuation of mobile accessories under section 25-A of Customs Act 1969.

It was stated that the meetings with all stakeholders and trade bodies were held in the Directorate General on 21-8-2019 and 13-01-2020 and the importers were requested to submit their proposals/suggestions as well as following documents before or during the course of stakeholders’ meeting so that the customs values could be determined:

i) invoices of imports during last three months showing customs value

ii) Websites, names and E-mail addresses of known foreign manufacturers of the items in question through which the actual current value can be ascertained

iii) Copies of contracts made/LCs opened during last three months showing value of the item in question

iv) Copies of sales invoices issued during last four months showing the difference in price (excluding duty and taxes) to substantiate their contentions.

It was pointed out that importers neither attended the scheduled meetings nor submitted any import related documents to this Directorate General despite being given reasonable opportunities of hearings.

It stated that valuation methods provided in Section 25 of Customs Act 1969 were duly applied in their regular sequential order to arrive at the customs values of subject goods. The transaction value methods has provided in sub section (1) of section 25 of Customs act, 1969 was found inapplicable due to wide variations of values displayed in their import data. Moreover, neither anyone attended the meeting nor submitted the documentary evidence to prove that their declared value was true transactional value. Hence, requisite information under law was not available to arrive at correct transaction value, therefore, identical/similar goods values methods as provided in sub section 5 and 6 of section 25 of ibid were examined for applicability to valuation issue in the instant case but due to wide there methods could not be relied upon exclusively.