Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 641 - CESTAT BANGALOREValuation of imported goods - medical and other equipments - enhancement of transaction value - related party transaction - Rule 2(2)(I) and (V) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - HELD THAT:- 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 Customs, Bangalore had referred to SVB Chennai for registration with the approval of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore in terms of Circular No.11/2001 dated 23.2.2001 - the order No.399/2003 dated 1.4.2003 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB 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. The jurisdictional Notification No.15/2002 dated 7.3.2002 quoted by the appellant is only a Notification to define the areas of jurisdiction in the respective designated offices. This has no relevance as far as Special Valuation Branch is concerned, which is an institution specialised in investigation of transaction involving related parties. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|