TIOL-DDT 1999 · 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 size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1999</font><br>
10.12.2012<br>
Monday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty Imposed for Six Years - Illegal? </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ANTI</strong> Dumping Duty on imports of ‘Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Suspension Grade', originating in, or exported from, Taiwan, People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia, Thailand and USA, was imposed by Notification No. 11/2008-Cus dated 23.01.2008. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Para 2 of the Notification stated, "The anti dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective for a period of <strong>five years …" </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Designated Authority recently requested the extension of this anti dumping duty up to one more year.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the Government has done it in a strange way. They have substituted "five years" with "six years" in the original notification (11/2008). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the anti dumping imposed shall be valid for a period of FIVE years. Of course, this can be extended for another period of five years. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 9A(5) reads as:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(5) The anti-dumping duty imposed under this section shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition: </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension . </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, in this case, what the Government has done is technically wrong. The amended notification makes the anti dumping valid for a period of six years, which is not correct. The Government has no power to impose the duty for six years. It has to be five years, which can be extended by another five years. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_052.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 52/2012-Cus.,(ADD) Dated: December 06, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs - Exemption to Re-imported Goods - Re-importation from Bhutan to be within 10 years</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> per Notification No. 158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995, there is an exemption from Customs Duty when goods manufactured in India and parts of such goods whether of Indian or foreign manufacture are re-imported into India for repairs or for reconditioning, provided such re-importation takes place within 3 years from the date of exportation. Instead of three years, it is ten years for re-importation from Nepal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, it is made ten years for re-importation from Bhutan also. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariff12_060.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 60/2012-Cus., Dated: December 06, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CESTAT - Contempt - Referred to HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AGAINST</strong> the order of the Commissioner (A), Shri Subhash M. Gandhi had filed an appeal along with stay application and an application for early hearing before the CESTAT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellant had submitted that he had neither received the SCN nor the o-in-o and the Commissioner (A) had dismissed his appeal on the ground of limitation. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When the matter was ascertained by the Bench from the Department, it was informed that both the SCN and the O-in-O sent by registered post were returned "unclaimed" by the postal department. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench had, therefore, observed that although the appellant resided at the address mentioned in the SCN & O-in-O he had deliberately and intentionally avoided the same and therefore the contentions raised of non-receipt of SCN & O-in-O were unsustainable. Consequently, the CESTAT held that since the appellant had not filed appeal within the time limit prescribed, the order of the Commissioner(A) is upheld and the Stay application and appeal is dismissed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thereafter, the appellant who himself argued the case before the Bench levelled allegations against the Bench - that the Bench is favouring the Revenue in the absence of any evidence. Furious at this remark, the Bench observed that such an act is contempt of the Court and accordingly issued a SCN seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
appellant <em>Shri. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi </em>was asked to reply to the
SCN by 15th May, 2012. (<strong>See </strong></font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2012/2012-TIOL-471-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank">2012-TIOL-471-CESTAT-MUM</a></strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellant did not file any reply to this show-cause notice dated 26.03.2012 despite several opportunities.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When the matter came up on the 10th October, 2012, an application was received wherein <em>Shri. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi</em> sought exemption from personal appearance and further submitted that the issue be decided and the decision communicated. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench has passed the following order - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Considering the fact that the appellant chose not to file reply to the show-cause notice dated 26.03.2012, therefore, it was observed that the appellant has nothing to say in reply to the show-cause notice dated 26.03.2012. Accordingly, the matter be referred to Hon'ble High Court of Bombay for proceedings of contempt of Court against the appellant Shri. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi. Contempt of Court reference against Shri. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court."</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(See </font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=28&filename=legal/cestat/2012/2012-TIOL-1815-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank">2012-TIOL-1815
-CESTAT-MUM</a></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">)</font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Former Chief Secretary in Contempt Case</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GURMINDER </strong>Singh Kang, a former Chief Secretary of Bihar was convicted by the Patna High Court in a contempt case with simple imprisonment of two months apart from a fine of Rs.2000/-. This was for disobeying the order of the High Court with regard to the promotion of a State Government Employee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Chief Secretary claimed that he did not understand the spirit of the High Court order. But the Court was not impressed as he was a senior IAS officer and it was found that he had nearly 30 years of experience as an officer in the administrative service. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Supreme Court in its order on 7th December 2012, observed, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Orders and judgments of the Court are meant to be obeyed and not to be disobeyed, with impunity. Of late, we come across several such instances, where high-level officers of the Administration display scant regard for the orders of the Court and always come forward with lame excuses. The case on hand is one such instance where the appellant who was a senior level I.A.S. Officer with not less than 30 years of experience in the State Administration came forward with a lame and flippant statement that he did not understand the implication of the order of the High Court which led him to pass such orders in total derogation of the directions contained in the orders of the High Court.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Taking into account the age of the appellant (Chief Secretary) as well as the remorse conduct now displayed before the Court, the Supreme Court imposed a "stern warning" and fine of Rs. 2000/- and the imprisonment for two months has been not retained.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Babus should learn to show a little more respect to the Judiciary and as the Supreme Court said, court orders are meant to be obeyed, not interpreted and disobeyed. </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Disciplinary Proceedings against Bureaucrats - CVC Guidelines </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AT</strong> present, CVC is being consulted at two stages in vigilance cases/disciplinary proceedings, i.e. first stage advice is obtained on the investigation reports, and second stage advice is obtained be fore a final decision is taken at the conclusion of the proceedings. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In order to ensure speedy finalisation of disciplinary matters and to avoid possibilities of difference of opinion between UPSC and CVC, it has been decided as a policy to prescribe only one consultation (either with UPSC or with CVC). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CVC therefore, in supersession of allits existing instructions /provisions in the Vigilance Manual prescribes that in disciplinary cases involving Group 'A' officers of the Central Government, members of All India Services and such categories of officers where an original order is to be issued by the President imposing any of the penalties wherein, the UPSC is required to be consulted as per extant rules, the Central Vigilance Commission need not be consulted for second stage advice on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/cvccir/2012/circvc_12_017.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CVC Circular No. 17/12/2012., Dated: December 07, 2012 </font></strong></a></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"> – Tuesday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p><font 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"><font color="#663399"><strong>Customs</strong></font> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 110A does not absolve or override provisions of Section 110(2) - Though seized goods are released provisionally under Section 110A, if no Show Cause Notice is issued within stipulated time under Section 110(2), goods shall be returned: HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE Petitioner is a Director of a private limited company, which is engaged in trading of imported and domestic cars. The petitioner imported a brand new Maserati car on 07-12-2010. The fifth Respondent (DRI) detained the Maserati car in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 under Panchanama dated 26.4.2011 and on the same day, handed it over to petitioner vide supurdarinama. The Commissioner of Customs extended the period for issuance of SCN for a further period of 6 months w.e.f 25.10.2011 under Section 110(2) ibid. On 09.05.2012, DRI, by Panchanama cancelled the supurdarinama and took possession of the Maserati car. </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 deduction claimed u/s 80IA was subjected to appellate proceedings and finally settled in favour of assessee, reassessment can still be initiated beyond four years - NO: HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> is engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity. Originally the assessee was engaged only in the distribution of electricity in Mumbai. However, with effect from assessment year 1996-97 it commenced generation of electricity from its plant at Dahanu. As a consequence of establishing of plant for generation of electricity the respondent became entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The issues before the Bench are - Whether when the deduction claimed u/s 80IA was subjected to appellate proceedings and finally settled in favour of the assessee, reassessment can still be initiated beyond four years and Whether in such a case the AO's order gets merged with the Tribunal's order and any proceedings u/s 147 are barred. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ship brokers are not Commission Agents: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> 'commission agent' acts on behalf of a principal and sells or buys the goods or provides or receives the services on behalf of his principal for some commission, The commission agent as agent of the principal can also deal with the goods or services, collect payment for sale price of goods or services sold or provide guarantee for the payment or undertake any activity relating to such sale or purchase of such goods or service. But all this activity must be as an agent acting on behalf of principal. From the nature of their activity, it is clear that brokers are purely intermediaries who do not act on behalf of either ship owner or the charterer and, therefore, they cannot be said to be commission agents. A ship broker, as the name itself suggests, is essentially a broker. Ship brokers are specialist intermediaries for negotiations between ship owner and charterers who use the ship to transport some cargo or between the buyers and sellers of the ship. </font></p>
<p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements</font></strong></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with <strong>DDT <font size="3">2000</font></strong></font></p>
<p><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"><strong><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></strong></font></p>
</body>
</html>