2022 (3) TMI 956

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal, Chennai. 2. According to the appellant, their company had imported excavator machine tools, spare parts and accessories from M/s.Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd., South Korea. The supplier being related company, the correctness of the declared value was examined by the Special Valuation Branch. After considering the documentary evidence, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order-in-original No.7731/2008 dated 4.6.2008 holding that the price declared was on par with contemporaneous imports made by unrelated buyers and therefore concluded that the declared price was the transaction value in terms of Rule 3(3)(a) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellant company also imported similar goods, which were also subjected to scrutiny and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner of Customs (Appeals), who, vide order dated 30.01.2015 passed an Order in Appeal C.Cus.II No.124 of 2015, setting aside the order dated 04.06.2014 and directed the adjudicating authority to revisit the issue and also ordered to collect extra duty deposit @ 5% equivalent of the value of the goods. 4. As against the order dated 30.01.2015 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order No. 42209 of 2017 dated 20.09.2017, directed the adjudicating authority to collect extra duty deposit at the rate of 1% of the value. Inspite of the order dated 20.09.2017 of the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB) passed an order-in-original (de novo) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration; (i) Whether the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction by refusing to stay the operation of the impugned order-in-appeal C.Cus.II No.338/2019 dated 25.04.2019, which has confirmed the order-in-original (denovo) No.64397/2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by the original adjudicating authority? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is empowered in terms of Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to stay the operation of the impugned order-in-appeal C.Cus.II No.338/2019 dated 25.04.2019, which has confirmed the order-in-original (denovo) no.64397 / 2018 dated 11.07.2018 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al to secure the ends of justice, instead, the Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of the stay application. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the stay application was dismissed on the ground that application for fixing an early date was allowed and in view of the same, the counsel for the appellant did not press the stay petition. In the meantime, the appellant was importing further goods and continue to give bank guarantee. He would further submit that the appellant has already given up its right for obtaining stay by not pressing the stay application, therefore, they cannot seek for restor....