TIOL-DDT 260 · 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"> <div align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 260</font><br> 13 12 2005<br> Tuesday</b> </font> </div> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ON</b> 1.12.2005, Board had issued instructions about disposal cargo unclaimed/uncleared for more than a year. Board circulars obviously have a high readership and the filed had raised certain doubts about disposal of cargo less than a year old. And now the Board has clarified the doubts. Para 4 of the earlier Board circular stated,</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">For uncleared/ unclaimed goods which are lying for a period less than one year, the custodian would get the reserve price fixed by a panel of Government approved valuers appointed by the Custodian. However, if these goods remain unsold and pass into the category of landed-more-than-one-year-prior, then the custodians can sell the same following the independent procedure without any reference to customs, and adjusting the number of auctions/tenders to which the lot was already subjected to against the prescribed number of four such auctions/ tender. <b><font color="#FF6666">It is re-iterated that for the valuation of goods landed at least one year prior to the date of seeking NOC,</font></b> Customs should not associate with the valuation of the goods lying uncleared with the custodian, however, both reserve price and bids would be approved by the Customs. <b>This is to ensure that the custodians do not cast the responsibility for unrealistic fixation of the reserve price on customs.</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now this para 4 is amended with the words marked in red above being deleted. This has been done to clearly state the intention behind the para 4 of the Circular No. 50/2005-Cus dated 01.12.2005. Let’s hope the field has better clarity now and will not raise any further questions.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2005/cuscir05_052.htm">CIRCULAR NO. 52/2005-Cus, Dated : Dec 9, 2005</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>How much for a question?</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was only yesterday that <b>DDT</b> reported the Transparency International’s Corruption Barometer declaring India as the country where politicians are perceived to be the most corrupt, but who could believe that our honourable Members of Parliament would actually take money for asking a question in Parliament and may be that is not an offence punishable as they enjoy immunity. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Are members of Parliament public servants within the meaning under Prevention of Corruption Act?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. If so who will sanction their prosecution?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Can they be punished for an offence in relation to their parliamentary activity?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Supreme Court had considered these questions in P. V. Narasimha Rao, Appellant V. State (CBI/SPE), Respondent- 1998-(004)-SCC -0626 –Supreme Court and held that </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. A Member of Parliament is a public servant within the meaning of S. 2(c)(viii)of the Prevention of <b>Corruption</b> Act, 1988</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. We have, reached the conclusion that <b>Members of Parliament</b> and the State Legislatures are public servants liable to be prosecuted for offences under the said Act but that they cannot be prosecuted for offences because of want of an authority competent to grant sanction thereto. <b>We entertain the hope that Parliament will address itself to the task of removing this lacuna with due expedition</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. An MP who has received bribe for voting in the Parliament in a particular manner and who has cast his vote, is entitled to immunity under Art. 105(2) but the MP who has not cast his vote and the bribe givers are not entitled to the immunity. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So may be if the MP takes money and asks the question, he cannot be punished but if he does not ask that question, he can be punished! One sure service for cash rendered.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Question for cash – not the first time – a little history</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Way back in 1951, Parliament was faced with such an embarrassing incident, but before that a little farther into history. When Clive won the Battle of Plassey, the East India Company carried away a treasure of £ 800,000. Clive received £ 234,000 as his share of the booty. On his return to England he used the money to set up in the Parliament a caucus of his nominees, who were to vote as he bade; entered the House of Commons, and engaged in the tremendous corruption of men’s consciences.. Impeached before the Parliament, he defended himself with an air of righteous indignation, <b>“when I think of the marvellous riches of that country and the comparatively small part which I took away, I am astonished at my own moderation.”</b> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Coming back to our 1951 story, Mr. H.G. Mudgal, an MP was charged with raising issues in Parliament on behalf of Bombay’s bullion merchants. A Special Committee of Parliament found him guilty of impairing the dignity of the highest forum of democracy and recommended action against him. He was a Congress member but that did not prevent Jawaharlal Nehru from moving a motion to expel him from the House. But even Parliament could not expel him as he resigned before the motion could be passed. Then a question arose whether the House could expel a person who was no longer a Member of the House. Then the Prime Minister moved an amendment that for the words "and resolves that Shri Mudgal be expelled from the House", the following be substituted: "and resolves that Shri Mudgal deserved expulsion from the House and further that the terms of the resignation letter he gave to the Deputy Speaker at the conclusion of his statement constitute a contempt of this House which only aggravates his offence." </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nehru told the house,</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>The purpose of expulsion is not so much disciplinary as remedial, not so much to punish members as to rid the House of persons who are unfit for membership. It may just as well be regarded as an example of the House’s power to regulate its own constitution.</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Writing to the Chief Ministers later Nehru observed,</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Parliament viewed the conduct of Mr. Mudgal with extreme disfavour. There has been a tendency in the past not only in Parliament but probably in the State Legislatures also, not to keep to proper standards of behaviour. The Mudgal case is an example and a warning and there must be no laxity shown when any such matter arises. <b>If once the reputation of our legislatures goes down, then democracy itself will be in peril. Therefore the reputation of these legislatures as also of our services, must be strictly guarded and any misbehaviour should lead to enquiry and action.</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Unfortunately we now have no more Nehrus but have many Mudgals! </b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#FF6666">Until tomorrow with more DDT</font></b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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> <p align="justify"></p> <p align="justify"></p> </body> </html>