|
| FBR clarifies news about under-invoicing in imports from China |
Wednesday, 05 September 2012 16:13:36
FBR clarifies news about under-invoicing in imports from China
ISLAMABAD, Sept 4 (APP): The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on
Tuesday clarified a news item appeared in a section of press regarding
difference in China's figures of export to Pakistan and Pakistan's
figures of import from China.
Additional Secretary Revenue Division Shahid Rahim Sheikh,
in a statement, said that the reported figures of China's exports to
Pakistan worth US $12 billion and Pakistan's imports of US $4 billion
and the attribution of the difference between the figures to under
invoicing in the imports from China were incorrect.
He said that as per official trade figures of both the countries, available on the website of International Trade Centre (ITC) (www.trademap.org), the value of China's exports to Pakistan during 2011
was US $ 8.4 billion while Pakistan's imports were US $ 6.4 billion.
"The discrepancy was thus of only $ 2 billion and not $8 billion as
reported in different trade meetings and a section of press", he said adding
that the issue of disparity in the trade figures of the two countries in addition to the element of under invoicing was attributed to different accounting periods and methodologies.
Shahid Rahim said that while the undesirable fact of under invoicing
could not be denied. The Pakistan Customs has in the past and at
present also taken legal and administrative measures to
address this problem and the complaint regarding huge gap in the
trade figures of Pakistan and China has been examined at length, he added.
He said that during meetings with the federation and the various
chambers, the issue of under invoicing especially with regard to imports from China were repeatedly raised.
The Pakistan Customs has taken up this matter with China Customs
in the past also and the matter is being again attended to, he added
He said that the disparity in trade figures of China
was not unique to Pakistan as such variations also existed
between trade figures of China and some of its other trading partners.
|
 |
|
