TIOL-DDT 1811 · 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><strong><font color="#663399"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=14276"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/ddt/ddt_1794.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1811 </font><br>
09.03.2012 <br>
Friday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti-Dumping
Duty on Polyester Yarn - Resurrection Again? </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong> had been hammering the Government on the unfair, unjust illegal resurrection of dead notifications to impose anti dumping duty through the backdoor. And of late, the Government had stopped resurrecting dead anti dumping notifications. The Board had even issued a <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2011/cuscir11_028.htm" target="_blank">Circular No. 28/2011-Cus, Dated: July 8, 2011</a></strong> that there would be no retrospective imposition of anti dumping duty. Board had clearly stated: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Thus, a definitive/final anti-dumping duty can be collected beyond the stipulated period only when a notification extending the levy has been issued, <strong>before the expiry of the parent notification</strong>.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=12761" target="_blank">DDT 1649 – 12.07.2011</a></strong> mentioned, <em>"Board deserves all praise for this very logical and reasonable clarification. So, now for the failure of the Board, the importer will not be punished."</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unfortunately, the Board does not retain for long the reasons for praising it. DDT has often commented about the utter lack of respect the field officers have for Board instructions. Now it seems that <font color="#FF6633"><strong>even the Board has no respect for its own orders</strong></font>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty was imposed on Polyester Yarn provisionally by Notification No. 82/2006-Cus dated 21.08.2006. This provisional anti dumping duty had expired on 20.02.2007. The Government woke up just in time and imposed definitive anti dumping duty by Notification No. 15/2007-Cus dated 20.02.2007. This notification specifically stated that<font color="#FF6633"><strong><em> the anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be levied with effect from the date of imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty, i.e. the 21st August, 2006</em></strong></font>. This notification expired on 20.08.2011 and now after six months of its death, the notification is extended till 20.08.2012. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about the Board's clarification that<em> a definitive/final anti-dumping duty can be collected beyond the stipulated period only when a notification extending the levy has been issued,<strong> before the expiry of the parent notification</strong>? </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This kind of smuggling of notifications should be treated as more dangerous than smuggling of goods. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_015.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 15/2012 - Cus.,(ADD), Dated: March 5, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FTP - DFIA - declaration of technical characteristics, quality and specifications at time of exports</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> per para 4.32.2 of HBP v1,<em> "… exporter shall be required to give declaration with regard to technical characteristics, quality and specification in shipping bill. RA while issuing DFIA shall mention technical characteristics, quality and specification in respect of such inputs............."</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT reiterates that the following shall be complied by RAs for cases covered under paragraph 4.32.2 of HBP v1:- </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>At the time of issuance of DFIA:</strong> Ensure that the exporter has given the details with regard to technical characteristics, quality and specifications in the application for DFIA (as at Sl. No. 15 of ANF A-H). RA should specify the details of technical characteristics, quality and specifications of such items in the DFIA. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>At the time of EODC/Redemption /Transferability:</strong> RAs must check that the same details are given in the shipping bills, and if the details are not given, the item(s) in question should be deleted from the duty free import list under DFIA. If, however, different technical characteristics quality or specifications are given in the shipping bill as compared to the endorsement on DFIA, then in such cases, the DFIA will be amended accordingly, only when the item(s) has (have) not yet been imported. In cases where imports have already been made, (with different technical characteristics, details and specifications) then the DFIA holder has to regularise the case for import of such items (which differ in their technical characteristics, details, specifications etc. from what was endorsed on the DFIA) by paying duty with interest etc., as the case may be. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft10cir057.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Policy Circular No. 57/2009-14 (RE 2011), Dated: March 06, 2012</font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Constitution
of Committee to formulate a Policy Document on Corporate Governance</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHILE</strong> the issue of how corporates decide to carry on their affairs is largely a matter of their choice subject to conformity with the law, the increasing importance of businesses to the economies and complexities of operating in an inter-dependent world have brought home the need for business chambers, professions, regulators and even the governments to take interest in this aspect. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government has constituted a Committee under Chairmanship of Adi Godrej to draft a policy document. The Committee is required to submit its report within six months from the first meeting. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/mca_circular_03_2012.htm"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ministry of Corporate Affairs No. No.17/46/2012-CL.V, Dated: March 07, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Arrested DRI Boss – Killed IPS Officer - Who is Better Off? </font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/dri_boss.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="266" height="275" hspace="5" border="0" align="left">YOU </strong>may not recognise the happy couple in this picture. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The girl is Madhurani an IAS officer in Madhya Pradesh, currently on maternity leave, expecting her first child. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Her smart husband Narendra Kumar <strong>was </strong>an IPS officer in Madhya Pradesh. Yes, he was in the IPS. He was killed yesterday by the mining mafia in Madhya Pradesh. The mining mafia has sent a strong message – they are not going to tolerate any interference in their illegal activities and apparently, the mafia has supporters, sympathisers and beneficiaries among politicians and bureaucrats. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The arrest of the ADG, DRI in Chennai sent shock waves right across the Revenue realm. All kinds of stories and rumours were doing brisk rounds; our phones never stopped ringing. Our CobWeb story brought in a large number of comments, most of which we cannot publish because of the choicest expletives used. Many felt that two lakh rupees was too cheap for a senior high-profile officer! Or was he fixed? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Long ago, Madame Gandhi declared that corruption is a global phenomenon. A few years down the line, they shouted <em>"galli galli mein shor hai, ……… chor hai"</em>. Any name from officialdom or politics would fill the gap! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now what should an officer do? Be honest like Narendra Kumar and get killed under a tractor or be corrupt and get caught by CBI? Really a difficult choice indeed! </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"> – Monday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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">MPVAT/CST </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether sale was interstate or intra state was a question of fact - High Court should not have entertained writ petition: SC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, because whether a sale originating in a State is an inter-state sale or not is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the authorities under the Act, since it involves the application of the provisions of Sections 3, 5, 6 and 9(i) of the Act to the facts established and hence, it will be a mixed question of law and fact. The facts requires to be brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority. It is after such adjudication, the matter can travel from one stage to the other as provided under the Act. </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 fails to prove that any agricultural activity was carried on plot of land, located in proximity of residential area, sale of such land gives rise to capital gains - YES: ITAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> sold an agricultural land and claimed that since it was not a capital asset, the profit on the transfer of the same was exempt. AO concluded that the land was not agricultural in nature and treated the sale transaction as ‘an adventure in the nature of trade'. AO asked the assessee to provide the details of crops grown, expenses incurred for raising the crops and evidence for agricultural receipt. Assessee contended that under a bonafide belief that no income was taxable, no details were maintained by her.</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">MRP has to be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself - since appellant is only affixing a sticker of MRP on shoes, benefit deniable - no prima facie case in favour - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> applicants are engaged in the manufacture of footwear (ch. 64). Foot-wear is notified goods for assessment under section 4A of the CEA and the applicants were paying duty on the MRP of the footwear. The applicants have also availed the benefit of <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2006/etariff06_005.htm" target="_blank"><strong>notification no. 5/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006</strong> </a>and cleared the goods at concessional rate of duty. The demand is confirmed on the ground that part of production of footwear is cleared to industrial consumers and, therefore, the footwear cleared to industrial consumers were assessable to duty under section 4 of the CEA. The demand is also confirmed on the ground that the applicant has wrongly availed the benefit of <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2006/etariff06_005.htm" target="_blank"> <strong>notification no. 5/2006-CE</strong> </a>as the applicant has failed to fulfill the condition of the notification. </font></p>
<p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Monday for the judgements </font></strong></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Monday with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a Nice Weekend.</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>