ANTI Dumping Duty on ‘Partially Oriented Yarn (POY)' originating in, or exported from, the China PR was imposed by Notification No. 92/2007-Customs dated the 3rd  August 2007. The Notification expired on 1st August 2011. Now the Government has extended it till 10th February 2012, eight days after its death.

The board had in Circular No. 28/2011 dated 8 th July 2011, instructed that, “a definitive/final anti-dumping duty can be collected beyond the stipulated period only when a notification extending the levy has been issued, before the expiry of the parent notification. Unless such revalidation or extension is carried out by a fresh notification, the collection of final anti-dumping duty should cease on the completion of five years as mentioned above. Where the findings in a review are notified after the lapse of the parent notification, the notification in such cases would be effective prospectively from the date of issue of such notification”.

This Circular was issued by TRU and this notification extending the anti dumping was also issued by TRU. Obviously, TRU does not follow its own instructions.

Notification No. 71/2011-Cus Dated: August 09, 2011

Anti Dumping Duty on Nylon Filament Yarn - Extended

THE Anti Dumping Duty on nylon filament yarn of specification ‘synthetic filament yarn including synthetic monofilament of less than 67 decitex, of nylon or other polyamides, originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and People's Republic of Korea, imposed by Notification No. 85/2006-Customs, dated the 29th August, 2006, which is to expire on 28th August 2011, is now extended till 28th November, 2011. This time, they have done it in time.

Notification No. 73/2011-Cus Dated: August 09, 2011

Illegal Imports of Pesticides - Board Instructions

IT has come to the notice of the Board that some unscrupulous importers are illegally importing pesticides under various headings of harmonised tariff by declaring their chemical names instead of both common and chemical names.

Board states, “Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 makes it mandatory for an importer / CHAs to declare full, correct and accurate information concerning the goods being imported in the appropriate columns while filing the Bill of Entry”. But neither Section 46 nor the Bill of Entry Form mandates anything like this.

Board further clarifies, “The accuracy of this information is vital to correct classification and assessment of duty including application of import restrictions, if any. Thus especially in case of imported items like chemicals, pesticides and insecticides it is necessary to properly declare basic information like complete description of goods, common name and chemical name, grade, specification, etc. If an importer / CHA fails to furnish the complete details then penal action may be warranted in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and other Acts and Rules for time being in force. Incorrect / incomplete declaration may impact assessment of goods, a composite function of classification, valuation, levy of correct duty and application of restrictions / prohibitions imposed under various allied laws.

Further, Rule 9(1) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 requires importers of insecticide to apply to the Registration Committee, Ministry of Agriculture for the registration of such goods. In case of pesticides in the Schedule to the said Act, registration and permit from Secretariat of CIB &RC is required. The certificate of registration and / import permit for import issued by the CIB &RC should also be properly checked at the time of import ”.

Board wants Public Notice/ Standing Order to be issued for guidance of all concerned.

CBEC Circular No. 35/2011-Cus Dated: August 09, 2011

Classification of Chloroparaffins /Chlorinated Paraffins - CBEC Clarifies

REFERENCES were received that divergent practices were being followed by field formations regarding classification of Chlorinated Paraffins/Chloroparaffins. It was stated that against the long and & existing practice of classification of the said goods under Chapter 38 of Central Excise Tariff, some field officers were classifying them under Chapter 27 during the period prior to Budget 2010.

The Board clarifies:-

(a) Chlorinated Paraffins/Chloroparaffins (liquid form) are classifiable under subheading 3824 90 of Central Excise Tariff Act.

(b) Chlorinated Paraffin Waxes (in solid form) are classifiable under sub-heading 3404.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, after the Budget, 2010.

CBEC Circular No. 950/1/2011-Cx Dated: August 01, 2011

Conditions and modalities for registration of contracts of cotton yarn- DGFT Relaxation

THE DGFT has received representations from Trade Bodies seeking exemption from penalty and placing in defaulters list in case of variation in export weight due to various reasons.

DGFT has decided that a variation of – 5% in weight against Registration Certificates issued for export of cotton yarn shall be allowed. Thus a variation of – 5% in weight in exports of cotton yarn against registered contracts shall not be treated as default for the purpose of imposition of penalty or debarment from future registrations.

DGFT Policy Circular No. 38 (RE-2010)/2009-14 Dated: August 10, 2011

Data Privacy of Individuals

SECTION 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 prescribes the body corporates to implement reasonable security practices and procedures. The provision also provides for compensation to be paid by body corporate, commensurate to the damages suffered by the affected person in case of leakage of sensitive personal information. Business Process Outsourcing firms are body corporates and thus are also covered under section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 has already been amended by Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 w.e.f. 27.10.2009.

Section 43A of the amended Act adequately addresses data privacy concerns in digital form. The rules under Section 43A have been notified w.e.f. 11.4.2011.

This information was given by Sachin Pilot, the Minister of State for Communication and Information Technology in written reply to a question in Lok Sabha yesterday.

Central Excise - Valuation - Cost of packing of motorcycles cleared to Depot to be included in assessable value - SC

THE Supreme Court, in a judgement delivered yesterday held that where the goods are delivered in a packed condition, at the time of removal, the cost of such packing shall be included and that only where such packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee, should the cost of such packing be not included in the value of the goods. This was a case under the old Section 4. We bring you this judgement today.

Please see Breaking News.

Be careful before you make that 'voluntary Statement' and make that 'voluntary deposit of Duty'

WHEN the Customs and Central Excise officers raid you, they normally force you to make a voluntary statement and also make a voluntary payment of duty much before issue of a notice. One should be very careful before giving such voluntary statements and making voluntary payments. Both the statement and the voluntary payment will be used by the Department against the assesse in proving evasion.

In a judgement delivered day before yesterday, the Supreme Court observed,

It is established from the record that the aforesaid statements were given by the concerned persons out of their own volition and there is no allegation of threat, force, coercion, duress or pressure being utilized by the officers to extract the statements, which corroborated each other. Besides, the Managing Director of the Company on his own volition deposited the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs towards excise duty. This fact clearly proves the conclusion that the statements of the concerned persons were of their volition and not outcome of any duress.

The statements were recorded by the Central Excise Officers and they were not police officers. Therefore, such statements made by the Managing Director of the Company and other persons containing all the details about the functioning of the company which could be made only with personal knowledge of the respondents and therefore could not have been obtained through coercion or duress or through dictation. We see no reason why the aforesaid statements made in the circumstances of the case should not be considered, looked into and relied upon.

It is clear that the Company was guilty of clandestine removal of excisable goods as non-excisable goods in order to evade excise duty. It is proved from the fact that the Managing Director voluntarily came forward to sort out the issue and to pay the Excise duty and paid Excise duty to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- on different dates. The aforesaid act of the respondent no. 1 was very material and relevant but the same was also ignored by the Tribunal while arriving at a wrong conclusion.

We will bring you this judgement tomorrow.

High Court upholds Conviction of Former CM in Corruption Case

THE Sikkim High Court has upheld the he conviction of Nar Bahadur Bhandari, the then Chief Minister of Sikkim and P.K. Pradhan (IAS), the then Secretary, Rural Development Deptt., Govt. of Sikkim. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months passed by the trial court has been reduced to one month with a fine of Rs 5000/- as more then 27 years have passed since the commission of the offence and during the interregnum, the appellant had no doubt suffered in body and mind.

The CBI had registered a case in 1984 against Bhandari, former Chief Minister of Sikkim and others including Puran kumar Pradhan, IAS, then Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim (who later became Chief Secretary of the State) for entering into a criminal conspiracy during year of 1983 -84 by abusing their official position as public servants in the matter of awarding the contract on higher rates in Rural Water Supply Scheme to private contractors by which wrongful loss was caused to Government and corresponding wrongful gain to private Contractors.

The CBI filed charge sheet in the year 1994 and charges were framed in the year 2002 against the accused.

The case ended in conviction in the court of Special Judge, Gangtok on 25.10.2008. The accused persons filed an appeal before the Sikkim High Court, which has now upheld the conviction.

When Did Amitabh become a Crorepati - Income Tax Knows?

RECENTLY when Amitabh Bachchan was asked to recall the moment when he first became a crorepati, he said, ¶I don't remember the time when I became a 'crorepati'. I have never paid that much attention to it I was more focused on my work that is acting. But I guess officials from the income tax department might know about it.¶

Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

Customs

The quantum of redemption fine is always dependent on determination of market price of goods confiscated. - Tribunal is required to give proper, valid and cogent reasons for passing orders with regard to quantum of redemption fine and penalty.: SC

THE quantum of redemption fine which could be imposed is always dependent on the determination of the market price of the goods confiscated. This is one of the pre-requisites prescribed in the statute itself.

There cannot be any universal rule of reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 20% and 5% and determination of quantum to be paid as redemption fine and penalty should be dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee discloses all details necessary for claiming deduction on debatable issue while filing return of income, penalty is warranted - NO, says ITAT

MERE making of a claim by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless it is found that any details supplied by the assessee in this return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false.

Central Excise

ROM - CESTAT exceeded its powers and tried to re-appreciate evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier - SC in pursuance of a rectification application - Rectified order quashed: SC

THERE was no mistake apparent on record when the CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent-assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by asessee should not have been engaged as a cost accountant. CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. The CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act .

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a Nice Day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com