Pre-deposit provisions to be simplified by accepting cash and / or bank guarantee or other securities. The assessee should have the option to pay the deposit in cash or through bank guarantee. In case bank guarantees are not renewed in time, the same may be encashed.

- Provisions for a pre-deposit should be made such that if the case is not decided within 6 months, the amount of pre-deposit shall be refunded. (The department is reluctant to agree that delays are inevitable. CVC may please discuss with CBEC and reconcile this. The assessee cannot be penalized for the delays in adjudication, provided he cooperates fully and does not contribute to delays).

Not acceptable as pre-deposit is towards government dues finalized and is distinctively different from security to be furnished against disputed amount.

The pre deposit trauma will continue. When stay gets vacated after six months why can’t pre deposit be returned if case is not decided within six months?

When it comes to money, Revenue will not budge, Lok Satta and CVC not withstanding.

- Section 35-C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, giving CESTAT a time-limit of 180 days to decide the appeal should be amended and the stay granted should be valid till the appeal is finally decided.

This is the domain of appellate forum. Suggestion is not feasible.

Not feasible as the appellate tribunal providing stay is dependent on the circumstances of each case and it cannot be bound by general rules.

This is bureaucratic comment at its evasive best: when several draconian measures can be brought in through Parliament, why can’t this be done?

- Instead of 4 regions, CESTAT should be in other regions also. A study of the appeals arising in that particular region should be made for deciding the location.

Can be examined.

Yet another classic case of not taking facts seriously. TIOL had brought to the notice of the Lok Satta that there five benches of the Tribunal not four. They did not change their draft. Is the Board not aware that a new bench of the Tribunal was stated in Ahmedabad? They could have given a positive reply. Now they say, Can be examined – by whom?

- Export valuation in respect of information knowledge based and propriety industries should be flexible, and the special problems of such Industries must be handled with sensitivity.

Instructions issued that exports would not suffer on account of problems in valuation of goods. However, the Board’s circular No.33 of 2005 of 2.8.2005 has been reiterated. (F.No.401/49/2003 Cus.III dated 31.03.2006).

The problem is as vague as the answer.

- For valuation of import goods for customs duty purposes, a national import database is now available only to the department. This can be moved into public domain and the industry can access them on payment of suitable charges.

It is not found feasible to accept the suggestion considering the sensitive nature of the data. However, general data on imports and exports in the form of Trade Statistics are already published by Custom Houses and Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics.

The sensitive data can be accessed in several sites. Only for the Board it is a secret.

- In case of valuation of second hand machines, normally a certificate from approved chartered engineer should be accepted, if it gives full details as prescribed. In case of discrepancies on intelligence information, machines should be allowed on second-check basis. Customs instructions on this should be reiterated.

Board’s instruction F.No.493/124/86-Cus . VI dated 4.1.98 has been reiterated vide Ministry’s letter F.No.401/49/2003-Cus.III dated 31st March, 2006.

What is the purpose of reiterating?

The provisions of section 27 of Customs Act for refund are not available in case of assessment of Bill of Entry, and provisions of appeal under section 128 have to be followed. In case of demands, the department can raise demand under Section 28 within six months and without challenging assessment of Bill of entry. Considering the principles of equity and natural justice, the provisions needed to be aligned so that refunds can be sanctioned without challenging the assessment in the Bill of entry. When the assessment claimed by importer is accepted, this provision of filing appeal is valid. However, if an assessment order has been issued, then appeal has to be filed and consequent refund claimed.

This requires amendment in the Act. It is being examined whether a change in the law is feasible.

CVC is happy Lok satta is happy and Board will happily examine.

Quality of the data will determine the success of EDI. The units of measurement should be clearly specified taking into account international standard in this regard. The industry should ensure quality of such data and standardize the units in import and export documents to ensure effective use of EDI, including effective risk management system.

EDI system already provides for standard units of measurements.

This is private bureaucracy. What is the purpose of telling the Board what importers should do?

- In case of CAG objections, the demand is being raised by the department. Where objections raised by CAG pertain to policy decisions or guidelines, demands should not be raised. If CAG raises objections against the guidelines/ policies, the matter should be referred to the ministry for decision and it should have prospective effect. In other type of cases, demand may be raised as at present and the issue resolved with CAG as quickly as possible within six months.

The demand raised by the department is

protective in nature. It is not feasible to place any restriction on raising of demand.

Nothing changes – Show Cause Notices continue.

In case of unjust enrichment, the government should come up with a list of situations detailing where unjust enrichment will not apply. In other cases, where unjust enrichment applies, it should clearly be specified what proof is required to establish that duty has not been passed on to customers.

Section 27(2) of the Customs Act provides the conditions under which refund is payable. Preparation of exhaustive list is not feasible.

Clarity thy name is not Board!

The interest on refund should be paid if it is sanctioned after three months from date of filing applications. Even if the refund becomes subject matter of appeal and the same is allowed by the appellate authority, the interest should be paid on expiry of three months of the original refund application.

Already provided under Section 27A.

This is the height of ignorance of the grand NGO trying to change the government, particularly the Board. As the Board rightly clarified, these provisions are already there in the Statute. May be Lok Satta has no means of checking their facts before taking on the CBEC. Before organizing such mega events, should not Lok Satta undertake a study of the laws and procedures instead of collecting a few tit bits here and there?

A copy of the statement, which may or may not be relied upon, deposed by a witness during the course of investigation, should be given to the person making the statement. The statement given by a person is his own property, and a copy cannot be denied to him. This also ensures that statements cannot be altered or tampered with subsequently.

Any person deposing under the Customs Act is given a copy of his statement. Statement of documents which are relied upon in the investigation alone are provided to the aggrieved person, as these form the basis of adjudication.

The Board’s clarification is contradictory. They say that a person deposing is given a copy and in the next sentence says only when it is relied, it is given.

The fact is the second sentence and it is perfectly legal too.

But why can’t a copy be given immediately after the statement is given?

At present, the facility of Advance Ruling is only available to Joint Ventures of Subsidiary of a Foreign Company. A similar facility should be extended to Indian Corporates. Effective mechanism to handle the potentially large number of applications for Rulings must be evolved.

This is a step in the right direction. Consideration that this would provide certainty in matters of doubt, binding effect on the parties, reduce litigations and WTO complaints, this may be acceptable in principle. It would require examination by both the Central Excise and Customs wing of the Board.

When you answer a hundred questions, after the fortieth, you lose interest.

Look at the Board’s reply. They laud the suggestion and say it requires examination by both the wings of the Board. Which wing gave this reply?