TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imports goods from its Parent company. The import transactions of the petitioner company from 'related persons' namely from parent company and group companies were examined under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) of the Customs Department at New Delhi. Dealing with the import from related persons under Circular No. 11/0!, dated 23-2-2001, the Central Board of Excise and Customs instructed that the SVB (Special Value Branch) shall hold enquiry wherever there is a prima facie justification for conducting the enquiry in case of imports where the transaction is between related persons in accordance with Rule 2(2) of the Valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 23-2-2001 in Circular No. 11/2001, the petitioner entertained the impression that considering the collection of EDO, the assessment was by way of provisional assessment. When the petitioner took steps to claim the refund of 1% EDD paid under the imports from related persons pursuant to the order passed on 6- 6-2008, the petitioner was informed by the respondents vide letter dated 17-6-2009 that the assessment was treated as final. In the circumstances, the petitioner represented on 22nd May, 2009 before the second respondent to treat these bills as provisionally assessed since they had paid 1% EDD for .the four bills of entry dated 13-12-2007, 12-2-2008, 27-2-2008 and 17-3-2008. The second respondent, however, rejected the said plea in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question of claim for refund would have to be made within the time frame prescribed under the Act. The respondent pointed out that as far as the collection of 1% EDD is concerned, the claim for refund had been made beyond the six months, hence, it has to be rejected. Consequently, as the petitioner has not made any claim for refund within the stipulated period, the question of refund of the amount does not arise. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner had been finally assessed and had paid extra duty deposit of 1%. The question of refund has to be considered only in accordance with the provi sions of the Act by the proper authority. The respondents submit that since the petitioner fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luation Rules and the prices declared by the importer for assessment of the imported goods to duty are not influenced by the relationship. Paragraph 12 of the order directed that all pending assessments be finalised accordingly. The order passed is stated to be the subject to occasional review a final review after a period of three years which means, as regards the imports done during this period, so long as invoice entries remained the same, the value declared by the importer for assessment of the imported goods is accepted as it is. The said order of the second respondent dated 6-6-2008 is binding on the petitioner as well as on the respondents. So far as this aspect is concerned, there is no dispute between the petitioner and the respond....