TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged under 21 Appeals. The appellant is a 100% subsidiary of Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany which imports from group companies based in several foreign countries, medical equipment such as Surgical Operating Microscope, Angiograph equipment, Metrological equipment and spares of such equipment. The appellants are admittedly related to their suppliers in terms of Rule 2 (2) (1) and (v) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. After prescribed scrutiny of the relationship between the suppliers and the appellants and other relevant particulars, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, Chennai had ordered that assessment of the equipment and spares imported by the appellants shall be assessed by enhancing the declared value by its 30%. Where declared prices were the price list price or in cases where such goods were sold to third parties, assessment shall be made at the list price or the price to third parties. This order of the Deputy Commissioner, SVB, Customs House, Chennai No.399/03 dated 1.4.2003 was reviewed and vide Review Order No.5588/2006 dated 15.11.2006, the initial orders continued for a period till 14.11.2009. These SVB orders con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No.15/2002 (NT) dated 7.3.2002, the Central Government appointed the Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai as officers of Customs for the "Area" specified under Column 2 of Sl. No.7 of the Table appended to the said Notification. The area specified did not include the area where the subject imports had taken place. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, SVB, Chennai Customs House has no jurisdiction to pass order on valuation of imports through ports outside Chennai. The orders passed in 2003 and 2006 were without jurisdiction and hence non-est. As held by the Apex Court in Priya Blue Industries [2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)], remedy against the assessment of goods in a Bill of Entry was available only through challenging assessment by way of appeal to the appellate authority. Their case was similar to the one in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vs. Hewlett Packard Ltd. [1999 (108) E.L.T. 221 (Tri.)] where the Tribunal had observed as follows:- "25. This leaves us to consider the last ground on which the revenue based their appeal viz., that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on lack of jurisdiction of the SVB officers of Chennai Customs House as regards the valuation of the goods imported through Bangalore. The Ld. Consultant relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of the above plea. (i) Union of India vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath [1997 (96) E.L.T. 224 (S.C.)] In this judgment, the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction to determine valuation of imported goods lay with Customs authorities in whose territorial jurisdiction the goods were imported. (ii) Devilog Systems India vs. Collector of Customs, Bangalore [1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.)] The Hon'ble High Court held that the Assistant Collector (IAD), Madras had no jurisdiction for assessment under section 28 of the Customs Act of goods imported and cleared through ICD, Bangalore. Several decisions of the Tribunal passed following the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court and High Court were cited. They relied on the Apex Court judgment in Deepak Agro Foods vs. State of Rajasthan [2008 (228) E.L.T. 510 (S.C.)] wherein it was held as follows:- "Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs, Customs House Chennai are non est. These orders prescribed as to how the value is declared for import of medical equipment, industrial metrology equipment and their spares by the appellants had to be assessed in view of the relationship it had with M/s. Carl Zeiss Germany and their subsidiaries based abroad. The appellants had relied on various case laws in support of the claim that an order issued without jurisdiction was non est and its validity could be questioned in any proceedings at any stage as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Brundaban Sharma and Anr. [1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases - 249]. The appellants had rightly relied on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath [1997 (96) E.L.T. 224 (S.C.)] wherein their lordships had held that valuation of the goods, they having been cleared in Bombay, could only have been decided by the Customs authorities in Bombay. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Devilog Systems India vs. Collector of Customs, Bangalore [1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.) wherein it was held that while issuing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
