TIOL-DDT 1671 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> </head> <body> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1671 </font><br> </strong></font><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">11.08.2011 <br> </font></strong><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thursday </font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on POY - Resurrection Continues </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ANTI</strong> Dumping Duty on ‘Partially Oriented Yarn (POY)' originating in, or exported from, the China PR was imposed by Notification No. 92/2007-Customs dated the 3rd August 2007. The Notification expired on 1st August 2011. Now the Government has extended it till 10th February 2012, eight days after its death. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The board had in Circular No. 28/2011 dated 8 th July 2011, instructed that, “<strong>a definitive/final anti-dumping duty can be collected beyond the stipulated period only when a notification extending the levy has been issued, before the expiry of the parent notification. Unless such revalidation or extension is carried out by a fresh notification, the collection of final anti-dumping duty should cease on the completion of five years as mentioned above. Where the findings in a review are notified after the lapse of the parent notification, the notification in such cases would be effective prospectively from the date of issue of such notification</strong>”. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This Circular was issued by TRU and this notification extending the anti dumping was also issued by TRU. Obviously, TRU does not follow its own instructions. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_071.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 71/2011-Cus Dated: August 09, 2011</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on Nylon Filament Yarn - Extended </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Anti Dumping Duty on nylon filament yarn of specification ‘synthetic filament yarn including synthetic monofilament of less than 67 decitex, of nylon or other polyamides, originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and People's Republic of Korea, imposed by Notification No. 85/2006-Customs, dated the 29th August, 2006, which is to expire on 28th August 2011, is now extended till 28th November, 2011. This time, they have done it in time. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_073.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 73/2011-Cus Dated: August 09, 2011 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Illegal Imports of Pesticides - Board Instructions </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> has come to the notice of the Board that some unscrupulous importers are illegally importing pesticides under various headings of harmonised tariff by declaring their chemical names instead of both common and chemical names. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board states, “<em>Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it mandatory for an importer / CHAs to declare full, correct and accurate information concerning the goods being imported in the appropriate columns while filing the Bill of Entry</em>”.<strong> <font color="#FF6633">But neither Section 46 nor the Bill of Entry Form mandates anything like this</font></strong>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board further clarifies, “<em>The accuracy of this information is vital to correct classification and assessment of duty including application of import restrictions, if any. Thus especially in case of imported items like chemicals, pesticides and insecticides it is necessary to properly declare basic information like complete description of goods, common name and chemical name, grade, specification, etc. If an importer / CHA fails to furnish the complete details then penal action may be warranted in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and other Acts and Rules for time being in force. Incorrect / incomplete declaration may impact assessment of goods, a composite function of classification, valuation, levy of correct duty and application of restrictions / prohibitions imposed under various allied laws.</em> </font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further, Rule 9(1) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 requires importers of insecticide to apply to the Registration Committee, Ministry of Agriculture for the registration of such goods. In case of pesticides in the Schedule to the said Act, registration and permit from Secretariat of CIB &RC is required. The certificate of registration and / import permit for import issued by the CIB &RC should also be properly checked at the time of import ”. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board wants Public Notice/ Standing Order to be issued for guidance of all concerned. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2011/cuscir11_035.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 35/2011-Cus Dated: August 09, 2011 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Classification of Chloroparaffins /Chlorinated Paraffins - CBEC Clarifies </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>REFERENCES</strong> were received that divergent practices were being followed by field formations regarding classification of Chlorinated Paraffins/Chloroparaffins. It was stated that against the long and & existing practice of classification of the said goods under Chapter 38 of Central Excise Tariff, some field officers were classifying them under Chapter 27 during the period prior to Budget 2010. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board clarifies:- </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a) Chlorinated Paraffins/Chloroparaffins (liquid form) are classifiable under subheading 3824 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) Chlorinated Paraffin Waxes (in solid form) are classifiable under sub-heading 3404.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, after the Budget, 2010. </font></p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2011/excircular950.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 950/1/2011-Cx Dated: August 01, 2011 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Conditions and modalities for registration of contracts of cotton yarn- DGFT Relaxation </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> DGFT has received representations from Trade Bodies seeking exemption from penalty and placing in defaulters list in case of variation in export weight due to various reasons. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT has decided that a variation of – 5% in weight against Registration Certificates issued for export of cotton yarn shall be allowed. Thus a variation of – 5% in weight in exports of cotton yarn against registered contracts shall not be treated as default for the purpose of imposition of penalty or debarment from future registrations. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft10cir038.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Policy Circular No. 38 (RE-2010)/2009-14 Dated: August 10, 2011 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Data Privacy of Individuals </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SECTION</strong> 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 prescribes the body corporates to implement reasonable security practices and procedures. The provision also provides for compensation to be paid by body corporate, commensurate to the damages suffered by the affected person in case of leakage of sensitive personal information. Business Process Outsourcing firms are body corporates and thus are also covered under section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Information Technology Act, 2000 has already been amended by Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 w.e.f. 27.10.2009. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 43A of the amended Act adequately addresses data privacy concerns in digital form. The rules under Section 43A have been notified w.e.f. 11.4.2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This information was given by Sachin Pilot, the Minister of State for Communication and Information Technology in written reply to a question in Lok Sabha yesterday. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise - Valuation - Cost of packing of motorcycles cleared to Depot to be included in assessable value - SC</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Supreme Court, in a judgement delivered yesterday held that where the goods are delivered in a packed condition, at the time of removal, the cost of such packing shall be included and that only where such packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee, should the cost of such packing be not included in the value of the goods. This was a case under the old Section 4. We bring you this judgement today. </font></p> <p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=12931" target="_blank">Breaking News</a>.</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Be careful before you make that 'voluntary Statement' and make that 'voluntary deposit of Duty'</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHEN</strong> the Customs and Central Excise officers raid you, they normally force you to make a <strong>voluntary</strong> statement and also make a <strong>voluntary</strong> payment of duty much before issue of a notice. One should be very careful before giving such <strong>voluntary</strong> statements and making <strong>voluntary</strong> payments. Both the statement and the voluntary payment will be used by the Department against the assesse in proving evasion. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a judgement delivered day before yesterday, the Supreme Court observed, </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>It is established from the record that the aforesaid statements were given by the <strong>concerned</strong> persons out of their own volition and there is no allegation of threat, force, coercion, duress or pressure being utilized by the officers to extract the statements, which corroborated each other. Besides, the Managing Director of the Company on his own volition deposited the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs towards excise duty. This fact clearly proves the conclusion that the statements of the concerned persons were of their volition and not outcome of any duress. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The statements were recorded by the Central Excise Officers and they were not police officers. Therefore, such statements made by the Managing Director of the Company and other persons containing all the details about the functioning of the company which could be made only with personal knowledge of the respondents and therefore could not have been obtained through coercion or duress or through dictation. We see no reason why the aforesaid statements made in the circumstances of the case should not be considered, looked into and relied upon.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is clear that the Company was guilty of clandestine removal of excisable goods as non-excisable goods in order to evade excise duty. It is proved from the fact that the Managing Director voluntarily came forward to sort out the issue and to pay the Excise duty and paid Excise duty to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- on different dates. The aforesaid act of the respondent no. 1 was very material and relevant but the same was also ignored by the Tribunal while arriving at a wrong conclusion. </font></em></p> <p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We will bring you this judgement tomorrow. </font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">High Court upholds Conviction of Former CM in Corruption Case </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Sikkim High Court has upheld the he conviction of Nar Bahadur Bhandari, the then Chief Minister of Sikkim and P.K. Pradhan (IAS), the then Secretary, Rural Development Deptt., Govt. of Sikkim. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months passed by the trial court has been reduced to one month with a fine of Rs 5000/- as more then 27 years have passed since the commission of the offence and during the interregnum, the appellant had no doubt suffered in body and mind. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBI had registered a case in 1984 against Bhandari, former Chief Minister of Sikkim and others including Puran kumar Pradhan, IAS, then Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim (who later became Chief Secretary of the State) for entering into a criminal conspiracy during year of 1983 -84 by abusing their official position as public servants in the matter of awarding the contract on higher rates in Rural Water Supply Scheme to private contractors by which wrongful loss was caused to Government and corresponding wrongful gain to private Contractors. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBI filed charge sheet in the year 1994 and charges were framed in the year 2002 against the accused. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The case ended in conviction in the court of Special Judge, Gangtok on 25.10.2008. The accused persons filed an appeal before the Sikkim High Court, which has now upheld the conviction. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When Did Amitabh become a <em>Crorepati</em> - Income Tax Knows? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RECENTLY</strong> when Amitabh Bachchan was asked to recall the moment when he first became a crorepati, he said, "<em>I don't remember the time when I became a 'crorepati'. I have never paid that much attention to it I was more focused on my work that is acting. But I guess officials from the income tax department might know about it.</em>" </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> – Friday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a></a><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"><strong><font color="#663399">Customs </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The quantum of redemption fine is always dependent on determination of market price of goods confiscated. - Tribunal is required to give proper, valid and cogent reasons for passing orders with regard to quantum of redemption fine and penalty.: SC</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> quantum of redemption fine which could be imposed is always dependent on the determination of the market price of the goods confiscated. This is one of the pre-requisites prescribed in the statute itself. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There cannot be any universal rule of reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 20% and 5% and determination of quantum to be paid as redemption fine and penalty should be dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether when assessee discloses all details necessary for claiming deduction on debatable issue while filing return of income, penalty is warranted - NO, says ITAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>MERE</strong> making of a claim by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless it is found that any details supplied by the assessee in this return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROM - CESTAT exceeded its powers and tried to re-appreciate evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier - SC in pursuance of a rectification application - Rectified order quashed: SC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THERE</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> was no mistake apparent on record when the CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent-assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by asessee should not have been engaged as a cost accountant. CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. The CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act . </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a Nice Day. </font></p> <p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p> </body> </html>