TIOL-DDT 251 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663366" size="3">TIOL-DDT 251</font><br> 30 11 2005<br> Wednesday</b></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Import of livestock products through Petrapole </b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Board’s Circular No.43/2001-Cus, dated 6.8.2001, import of livestock products will be allowed through the airports and seaports at Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai only which have Animal Quarantine and Certification Services Stations. Now Board allows import of perishable fish items, exclusively meant for human consumption but excluding seed material for breeding or rearing purposes at Petrapole, District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, through land route.<br> <br> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2005/cuscir05_048.htm">CIRCULAR NO. 48/2005-Cus., Dated: November 28, 2005</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>HI – TECH Indian Customs – learn from the Australian experience </b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Indian Customs is all set to go hi tech with the automation of many procedures planned in the not too distant future. Will it work in India? Will the agents and officers allow a hassle free system to work? And will those computers work? They should and we should spare no efforts to ensure that they do. The recent Australian Customs fiasco achieved at a cost of over a thousand crores, where Cargo piled up in ports because those computers refused to function should be kept in mind before we go along. The Australian failure should not dissuade us but should act as an example, for we are the best computer brains in the world.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>India ranked 22 in the most competitive world economies</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Deloitte Competitiveness Index (DCI) is a new ranking based on key drivers of wealth creation – innovation, enterprise, investment and macroeconomic data. Their report places India at 22 among the top 25 countries, above Portugal, Russia and China. The report ranks the US at the top of the league with a strong performance across all sectors with a particular strength as 3.2% of its GDP is invested in R&D. “The Deloitte Competitiveness Index shows the long term mechanisms by which a country becomes wealth creating and in spite of the current low ranking of China and India their economic prowess should not be underestimated” according to a Deloitte expert.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Voluntary Statements?</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Why should any sane person give a voluntary statement to the Customs admitting his guilt? But you peruse any statement given before any customs officer and you will find the mandatory para at the end. “I have given this statement out of my own free will without any threat or coercion”. How is this uniform wording of the statement happening with all the accused persons? And how does a hard core smuggler suddenly become a repenting saint and confess before the Customs <b>voluntarily? </b><br> <br> Third degree is the trick. There is a fourth degree too. If any offender has the audacity to retract a statement within a reasonable time, he is summoned back and given a fresh <b>coating</b> and he gives a statement that his retraction was purely an evil act and that he stands by his first statement. Unfortunately the courts accept these statements. The logical fact that nobody (more so a confirmed tax evader) will voluntarily confess that he is guilty, is somehow ignored. The officers should remember that even those who they think are smugglers have rights and nobody has the right to assault another human being to obtain a voluntary statement. <br> <br> Today we are carrying a judgement of the Supreme Court of India in which a person had to languish in jail illegally because of such a voluntary statement. A person flies into Chennai with a TV. When the officers intercept him they find that the picture tube is filled with cell phones. The passenger gives a voluntary statement that he is guilty and is promptly thrown into jail. Later he writes to the Air Customs that his statement was obtained by torture and he was carrying the TV for somebody and he did not know about the cell phones. May be true, may be false. But the Customs keeps his retraction a secret and does not inform the DRI which recommends his detention under COFEPOSA. He has to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get his detention quashed – after two years! The Supreme Court declares his detention was illegal. The man was in jail because the Customs did not inform the proper authority that he had retracted his statement. This is no support to a smuggler – punish all the smugglers – if you can – but after a due process of law. The highest court of the land declares that his detention was illegal but what is the use if he had to spend a couple of years in jail before his detention is quashed? Should the process of law be harsher than the ultimate punishment? <br> <br> When you beat up somebody or send some one to jail unfairly, just remember how you would feel if the person was your son/brother/father or even your own exalted self? <br> <br> <font color="#663366"><b>“It is my duty to warn you that it will be used against you,” cried the Inspector, with the magnificent fair play of the British criminal law.</b></font> – <i><b>Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - The Return of Sherlock Holmes - 1904</b></i></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#FF6666">Until tomorrow with more DDT<br> <br> Have a nice day. </font></b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font></b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p> </body> </html>