Notification fiasco - Who is responsible for confusion? Madam Chairman, will you stop this 'smuggling' in Notifications?
INDICATIVE of the deteriorating standards of tax administration and irresponsible drafting reaching the highest offices, this year's budget has seen many corrections as a result of careless drafting. While some of the corrections are made through corrigenda, some are secretly smuggled in leaving stakeholders unaware of such amendments. In the budget copy of the Notification No 12/2012 Cus dated 17.03.2012, against serial No 148, the following conditions are seen:
S. No. | Chapter | Description of the goods | Standard rate | Additional rate | Condition No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
148 | 28, 29, 30 or 38 | The following goods, namely:- | |||
A) Life saving drugs / medicines including their salts and esters and diagnostic test kits specified in List 4 | Nil | - | - | ||
(B) Bulk drugs used in the manufacture of life saving drugs or medicines at (A) | Nil | - | 5 | ||
(C) Other life saving drugs or medicines | Nil | Nil | 10 |
The copy of the Notification available on the website of http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2012-13/cen/cus1212.pdf also shows the condition 5 against the goods covered under entry (B) and condition 10 for the goods covered under entry No (C). All the print and electronic media also carried these Notifications with the above conditions.
But, suddenly for the reasons best known to the CBEC, in the copy of the Notification available on CBEC website, condition No 5 is not seen and a “-“(dash) is seen against goods covered under (B). This means the importers availing exemption need not satisfy the condition 5 for the goods covered under entry (B).
The copy available on CBEC website right now shows this entry as under:
S. No | Chapter | Description of the goods | Standard rate | Additional rate | Condition No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
148 | 28, 29, 30 or 38 | The following goods, namely:- | |||
(A) Life saving drugs / medicines including their salts and esters and diagnostic test kits specified in List 4 | Nil | - | - | ||
(B) Bulk drugs used in the manufacture of life saving drugs or medicines at (A) | Nil | - | - | ||
(C) Other life saving drugs or medicines | Nil | Nil | 10 |
Did the Board really want to remove the condition 5 in the above entry? If so, why the same should be carried secretly without issuing any corrigendum or any amending notification? Now, whether the importers have to follow the Notification as it is available in the CBEC website or should they follow the original Notification available in Indiabudget website? Which is the correct version? Interestingly, the Hindi version of the Notification available on CBEC website still shows condition against entry (B).
The Condition 5 reads as: "If the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996." This is a very important condition and there is no reason why this should be surreptitiously removed, especially when this condition existed even in the previous version of this notification that is 21/2002-Cus.
There is a remark at Notification 12/2012 on CBEC website that "English version is updated with all the corrigenda issued till 30th May 2012". The last corrigendum made known to public was the 7th one which was issued on 13.04.2012.. Does this mean many other corrigenda were issued from 13.04.2012 to 30th May 2012 and the CBEC is shy of making them public? Why did the CBEC website remove all the seven corrigenda issued till 13.04.2012 from their website? They don't want the public to count their mistakes? If that be the case, they can issue any number of corrigenda without making them public and can simply put a remark "Notification corrected upto ...). Sevottam at the highest level?
The CBEC has a new Chairman - a dynamic lady. Will she try to put an end to this smuggling of laws by the highest body? It is perfectly human to make a mistake (or even hundreds of them as our Board usually does), but the Board should be mature enough to admit the mistakes and correct them instead of smuggling in corrections and confusing the assessees, publishers, officers and even the judiciary.
If after so many years of experience in manufacturing notifications, you cannot draft a notification correctly or correct it correctly, there is something terribly wrong and such wrongs cannot and should not be allowed to continue. It is sheer arrogance and contempt for the rest of the world that a gazetted notification can be tinkered with.
Madam Chairman, Your Notification Factory needs urgent repairs. Irresponsible legislation with irresponsive arrogance will cause irreparable damage to the system.