9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch (SVB), Chennai vide Order-in-Original No.399/2003 dated 1.4.2003 had investigated the related party transaction and held that the appellant and the principal are related under Rule 2(2)(I) and (V) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The said Order-in-Original which stated that the transaction value of goods imported by the appellant may be accepted subject to the addition under Rule 9(2) wherever necessary was reviewed and was upheld vide Review Order No.5588/2006 dated 15.11.2006. This order was accepted by the appellant. In 2009, the appellant filed 117 Bills of Entry for import of goods from their related principal through air cargo Bangalore. The Assistant Commissioner rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of officers of Customs of Chennai has specified the area in Col. No.2 of the said Notification covering in and around Chennai and the same does not extend to Bangalore. They have also relied on Tribunal's Order No.697/2010 dated 5.4.2010. The Tribunal held that: "6.......... The Assistant Commissioner of Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai is not competent to determine the value of the goods imported through ICD, Bangalore. As per subsection 1 of Section 5, an officer of Customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under the act subject to conditions and limitations CBEC may impose. Therefore, the jurisdiction of officers working under the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Chennai is ruled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder-in-Original No.399/2003 dated 1.4.2003 was issued to accept the transaction value of the goods imported subject to verification of pricelist and loading the values to the level of list price wherever the prices are found to be less than the list price and subject to addition under Rule 9(2) wherever necessary. This order was reviewed and confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.5588/2006 dated 15.11.2006. Both these orders were accepted by the appellant and hence, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) is valid and sustainable. 4. The fact that the appellant and supplier are related parties is not in dispute. Appellant had imported various medical equipments through Bangalore Air Cargo Complex and the Deputy Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above order was taken up for review and vide Order-in-Original No.5588/2006 dated 15.11.2006 the same was confirmed by upholding the original Order No.399/2003 dated 1.4.2003. Both the above orders were accepted by the appellants. The impugned order following the above order cannot now be questioned on jurisdiction because the above two orders were rightly referred to SVB Chennai in terms of Board Circular No.11/2001 dated 23.2.2001. Since the SVB orders issued earlier were also imports made from Air Cargo Bangalore, whose orders based on SVB Chennai was accepted; the appellants cannot turn around and state that the SVB order of Chennai is not applicable to the present case. 5. The jurisdictional Notification No.15/2002 dated 7.3.2002 q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
