TIOL-DDT 443 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>Taxindiaonline's DDT 402</title>
</head>
<body >
<p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT
443</font><br>
06 09 2006<br>
Wednesday</b></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Export
warehouses- Board amends circular</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
per the Board’s circular 581/2001, the exporters who have been accorded status
of Super Star Trading House or Star Trading House are eligible to set up export
warehouses. But now the Board has noticed that, “Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09
has renamed certain categories of exporters such as ‘Super Star Trading House’
and ‘Star Trading House’ as ‘Four Star Export House’ and ‘Five Star Export House’
respectively.” And so the Board circular needs amendment. And so the Board has
issued a new circular which says,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
aforesaid Circular is <b>being</b> suitably amended as follows:</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1)
Exporters: “The exporters who have been accorded status of Two Star Trading
House and above as per the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09;</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now
this raises two questions:-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.
Is the circular <b>being</b> amended or is it <b>already</b> amended? If it
is being amended, will they issue another circular after it is amended?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2.
Why did it take the Board five months to realize that the FTP had renamed certain
categories of exporters? Don’t they read the FTP immediately after it is issued?</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=31&filename=notification/excise/2006/excircular832.htm">CIRCULAR
NO 832/2006-Cx., Dated: September 4, 2006</a></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Imports
under Focus Product Scheme exempted</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
per para 3.10 of the FTP, Exports of notified products to all countries shall
be entitled for duty credit scrip equivalent to 2.5% of the FOB value of exports
for each licensing year commencing from 1<sup>st</sup> April, 2006. However
only 50% of the export turnover of such products shall be counted for benefits
under the Scheme. The scrip and the items imported against it would be freely
transferable.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That’s
the policy, but the policy is meaningless until Revenue chooses to issue the
exemption notification which has now come after five months of the policy announcement.
The government has now issued a notification exempting the goods imported and
cleared through the duty credit scrip on the same conditions as announced in
the policy. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But
why all this duplication and delay? Can’t we empower the Commerce ministry to
issue these notifications along with the policy? The exemption notifications
are to be issued by the government and commerce ministry is as much government
as the Revenue ministry. Or can’t the DGFT liaison with the CBEC before the
policy is announced and get the Revenue ministry to issue the customs notifications
along with the policy? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But
then things have got top be complicated and that’s what government is all about!</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There
is a similar notification for the <b>Focus Market Scheme.</b></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=23&filename=notification/custom/2006/ctariff06_090.htm">NOTIFICATION
NO. 90</a><b> and </b><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2006/ctariff06_091.htm">91/2006-Cus.,
Dated: September 1, 2006</a></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">The
wheat import exemption – CBEC vsagri minister</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Day
before yesterday a senior editorial colleague called up with high excitement
and told me that import of wheat is exempted but he wanted a clarification.
He said that Mr. Pawar had announced that wheat imported by private traders
is exempted, and it was said that, “as of now there is no duty on wheat” He
wanted to know, “as of now if there is no duty, what is the exemption?” I suggested
to him that we would not carry the news until we get a copy of the notification.
And yesterday we are told, there is no such notification. CBEC chairman VP Singh
had clarified that there is no such exemption and the 5% duty continues. But
SharadPawar had the last laugh. He again announced that the government had indeed
decided to exempt imported wheat till December 30<sup>th</sup>. He also said
that the Chairman, CBEC might not have been told about it. Pawar said that the
notification would be issued in a couple of days.</font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Committee
of Commissioners - The silent killing of a good proposal of Finance Bill,2005..</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There
was a drastic change in the review provisions of the orders passed by the adjudicating
authorities in the budget proposals for year 2005. The changes inter alia included
the review powers of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under s.35-A
of CESA,1944 and s.129-A of Customs Act,1962. However, drastic deviation was
made when the Finance Act,2005 was finally enacted.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
relevant provisions of the Finance Bill,2005 are reproduced below:-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Finance
Bill,2005</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">70.
In section 129A of the Customs Act,—</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a)
after sub-section (1A), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:—</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"(1B)
The Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Committee
consisting of two Chief Commissioners of Customs for the purposes of this
Act.";</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b)
in sub-section (2),—</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i)
for the words "The Commissioner of Customs may, if he is", the words
"The Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs may, if it is"
shall be substituted;</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii)
for the words "on his behalf", the words "on its behalf"
shall be substituted.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">71.
In section 129D of the Customs Act, for the word "Board", occurring
in sub-sections (1) and (3), the words "Committee of Chief Commissioners
of Customs" shall respectively be substituted.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">78.
In section 35A of the Central Excise Act, in sub-section (5), for the words
"Commissioner of Central Excise", the words "Chief Commissioner
of Central Excise" shall be substituted.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">79.
In section 35B of the Central Excise Act,—</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a)
after sub-section (1A), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:—</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"(1B)
The Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards
of Revenue Act, 1963 may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute
a Committee consisting of two Chief Commissioners of Central Excise for the
purposes of this Act."; b) in sub-section (2),—</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i)
for the words "The Commissioner of Central Excise may, if he is",
the words "The Committee of Chief Commissioners of Central Excise may,
if it is" shall be substituted;</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii)
for the words "on his behalf", the words "on its behalf"
shall be substituted.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">80.
In section 35E of the Central Excise Act, for the word "Board", occurring
in sub-sections (1) and (3), the words "Committee of Chief Commissioners
of Central Excise" shall respectively be Substituted.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It
will be interesting to note the changes made in the Finance Act,2005 which is
reproduced hereunder.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">S.79-Amendment
of section 35B.- In section 35B of the Central Excise Act.-</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a)
after sub-section (1A), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“(1B)
(i) The CBEC constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act,1963(54
of 1963) may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute such Committee
as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
(ii) Every Committee constituted under clause (i)shall consist of two Chief
Commissioners of Central Excise or two Commissioners of central Excise, as
the case may be.”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b)
in sub-section (2),-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i)
for the words “the Commissioner of Central Excise may, if he is “, the words
“The Chief Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise may, if it is “ shall
be substituted;</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii)
for the words “on his behalf ”, the words “on its behalf ” shall be substituted.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Similar
changes have been made in the Customs Act,1962 vide section 70 of the Finance
Act w.r.t s.129-A(1B) and sub section 2 there under. From the above it may
be seen that a new Committee of Commissioners have been entrusted with the review
of orders passed by the Appellate Commissioners wef.13-5-2005.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">While
the Finance Bill proposed the basic change of review of Orders passed both by
Commissioners and Appellate Commissioners by a committee of Chief Commissioners
, in the finally approved version of Finance Act,2005 an additional Committee
of Commissioners was also incorporated to review the orders of the Appellate
Commissioners. The rationale/reasons in the creation of the new Committee of
Commissioners when there was already the committee of CCs to review the orders
–in- original passed by the Commissioners is beyond the comprehension. It is
pertinent to note that both the Commissioner and the Appellate Commissioner
are of the same rank of Joint Secretary to the GOI. How and why there is a deliberate
attempt in the statute itself to belittle certain offices /officers w.r.t the
portfolios and postings.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">At
least the time has come to undertake a system review of the two committees especially
considering the large no. of adverse comments from CESTAT , High Court etc.
on the appeals being filed by the Department. The no. of Committees created
with the permutation and combination among the 21 CCs and 92 Commissioners for
the review of the orders passed by the 92 commissioners and 71 Appellate Commissioners
would be the largest no. of regular committees set up by the CBEC. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tailpiece:-An
example of haphazard and hasty drafting is evident in the notification issued
prescribing the jurisdiction of CCs, Commissioner (Appeals) etc. (Notification
no.14/02-CE(NT)) dt.8-3-2002 as last amended by Notification No.1/05-CE(NT).
Dt.4-1-2005.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
per the amendment vide Notn.No. 03/04- CE(NT) dt. 4/2/204, certain changes were
made in the jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) in Table III. Accordingly,
both at sl.no.17 and 65 in the Table, we find the jurisdiction of the Commissioner(Appeals)
at Cochin and Trivandrum over the
three Commissionerates viz. Cochin, Calicut
and Trivandrum . Apparently ,it
could be an omission not to delete sl. No.65 since the post of Commissioner
Appeals at Trivandrum has been diverted
elsewhere. If the intention was to retain only one post for both places, there
is no point in retaining both the entries simultaneously. Otherwise, a doubt
can arise whether the orders are to be passed as Appellate Commissioner, Trivandrum
or as Cochin when there is only Commissioner posted at
Cochin. It would also be quite
possible that the provisions are made for the Commissioner (Appeals) posted
to choose/opt theHqrs. to be at Trivandrum or Cochin.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All
the same, the position remain un- attended till date; may be nobody has bothered,
as these are not sought after posts.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(sent
in by a concerned netizen)</font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until
tomorrow with more DDT </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"><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></span></font></p>
</body>
</html>