TIOL-DDT 666 · Friday, 27 July 2007 · story 1 of 3

Reduction Of Customs Duty On Palm Oils - Govt explains goof-up

A Government Press release says,

On July 23, 2007, Government decided to reduce the import duty, inter alia, on palm oils as under:-

++ Crude palm oil including crude palmolein from 50% to 45%

++ Refined palm oil including RBDpalmolein from 57.5% to 52.5%.

Consequently, a press release was issued on the evening of July 23, 2007 by the Ministry of Finance to convey the decision of the Government. The press release correctly reflected the decision of the Government.

Notification No. 87/2007 -Customs was issued in this regard on July 23, 2007 evening.

It was subsequently noticed that the notification issued inadvertently indicated the import duty on crude palm oil including crude palmolein to be 40% as against 45% decided by the Government. Immediately, on discovery of this inadvertent error, suitable corrigendum was issued to the notification on 25th July, 2007 morning, to reflect the correct position as had been decided by the Government. The position thus is that the import duty on crude palm oils including crude palmolein stands reduced to 45% and not 40%, with effect from 23rd July, 2007, and all imports on or after this date will attract 45% import duty.

There were clearances of palm oil for home consumption by four importers during the intervening period before the corrigendum was issued. Following the corrigendum, the four importers have agreed to pay duty at 45% and three of them have already done so. The fourth importer has agreed to pay the differential duty on July 27, 2007. Thus, there is no loss of revenue to the Government and no unintended benefit to any importer. Government regrets the mistake in the notification.

Now this raises several questions:

1. Which has more statutory relevance - press release or a notification?

2. Why should the importers agree to pay more duty than what was required as per the notification? They must have been gently persuaded.

3. Can a Notification be amended by a corrigendum?

4. And can't the corrigendum at least be clear?

5. Should the government adopt arm twisting to collect illegal duty from the importers just because they are vulnerable?

This only proves that collection of lakhs of Crores as taxes is not because of the babus but in spite of them!