23.12.2014
Tuesday
AS per the Baggage Rules, a lady Indian returning from a foreign country can bring gold worth one lakh rupees (this is only fifty thousand for a gentleman). In one lakh, you can hardly get 40 grams of gold - maybe one good necklace. Then what will happen to earrings, bangles and other ornaments?
She can bring back gold taken out earlier by her or a family member, but she has to prove to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner that the gold was indeed taken out earlier from India. How do you do that?
They have a system called export certificate issued by the Customs when you leave the country. Have you ever seen a counter issuing such certificate in any airport in the country? Has any Customs Officer in any airport ever told you about this facility?
Anyway the facility exists.
The website of the IGI Airport of AAI mentions:
Please collect export certificate from Customs Officer in departure in respect of valuable goods (e.g. laptop computer, jewellery, video camera) being taken out in order to clear them free of duty on arrival. Export Certificate is now reusable for a period of one year.
The website of Chennai Air Customs stipulates:
If you are carrying an expensive electronic gadget etc with you which you intend to bring back to India, it is advisable to get an export certificate for the item so that no duty is charged on the item when bring it back to India. The certificates are issued by Customs in the Customs Facilitation Room after the immigration area. It is advisable to pack such items in a hand baggage so that the same may be retrieved easily. The item needs to be exhibited to the customs officer along with your boarding pass and passport. Any document/ invoice etc which indicates the value of the item may also be produced. Specific markings, number etc are noted by the officer and the certificate issued. It is valid for one year. In case you want to check in the item for which you want the export certificate ask the airlines staff to assist you and call the customs officer.
The Delhi Airport Customs Manual in Page 76 states:
There is no value limit on the export of Gold jewellery by a passenger through the medium of baggage so long as it constitutes the bona-fide baggage of the passenger. Issue of export certificate for the export of gold jewellery by the officers posted at IGI is not practical as they are not expert. For obtaining a certificate the passenger may approach the Customs office at Jhandewalan & get the Jewellery sealed & get the certificate issued .
This facility or the lack of it resulted in a PIL in the Delhi High Court. The petitioner sought a mandamus to the respondents Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and the Central Board of Customs and Excise to have an Appraisal Counter for evaluation of declared items of the passengers at the IGI Airport, New Delhi. The petitioner submitted that no Appraisal Counter which can give Export Certificate is available at IGI Airport and for getting the assessment; the passenger is directed to Customs House at Jhandewalan, which is at 30 kms distance - the same causes inconvenience to the passengers. Other countries, viz. United States of America and United Kingdom, have Evaluation/ Appraiser's Kiosk at the airport itself.
The Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, in an affidavit submitted:
(a) the process of issuing of Export Certificate for gold jewellery is time consuming, wherein the metal is tested for its purity rank and photographs are taken and the jewellery sealed;
(b) owing to the high number of passengers who may like to get an Export Certificates and the time consumed in issuing such certificate, it is highly improbable to issue such certificates on the spot to on-going passengers;
(c) such Export Certificate can be issued only in advance, requiring the passenger to use such facility at least one working day in advance;
(d) the facility has been made available in Jhandewalan complex located in the center of the city;
(e) relocating such services to airport will require the passengers to make two trips to airport, furthering the problems faced by them - such trips with jewellery may also cause security hazards for the passengers;
(f) IGI Airport Customs is short of desirable space and infrastructure and trained jewellery appraisers to provide such facilities at IGI airport;
(g) to the best of the knowledge of the deponent, no airport in the country has such facility;
(h) issuance of the Export Certificate for jewellery can only be done in advance since it requires time and involves jewellery experts and such a facility is ideally located in the center of the city.
The High Court was not impressed and observed in a Judgement delivered yesterday:
1. The respondents do not appear to have approached the issue in the correct perspective. The counter affidavit is full of legalese, rather than addressing the important issue of public interest raised in the petition. The reason given, of paucity of space and infrastructure at the airport also does not inspire confidence. IGI Airport has recently undergone re-development by acquisition of land, displacing a large number of villagers. To our knowledge, large portions of such acquired lands have been used for building hotels and which are often found to be serving the need, instead of users of the airports / travelers, of the city residents. We wonder as to why the respondents, at the time when the re-development of the airport was being planned, if facing any paucity of space / infrastructure, could not have demanded additional space.
2. Similarly, the argument given of having an Appraisal Counter at the airport / close to the airport posing a security hazard to the airport, cannot be accepted. Having used the said airport, it is to our knowledge that large portions of the re-developed airport are outside the secured arena. It is thus possible to have the said counter, in close vicinity of the airport and without posing any security hazard.
3. The hotels in the aerocity can be accessed by all and not merely by only those using the airport. The Appraisal Counter could have been similarly used within the said aerocity.
4. Experience also shows that most of the international flights depart from Delhi in the night hours. It has not come on record whether the existing Appraisal Counter remains open 24x7 or not. In our opinion it should again, so as not to compel the travelers to make a separate visit to Delhi for availing the services thereof.
5. We are also unable to comprehend the reasoning given in the counter affidavit of the appraisal requiring a long time. We can with reasonable certainty be sure that such appraisal does not require any chemical test. The same would at best require a physical examination with gadgets (and which our research shows, is called the specific gravity test) and weighing the item.
The High Court was of the view that its powers did not extend to giving a direction as is sought, but it directed the respondents take a reasoned decision on shifting the existing Appraisal Counter to the airport/in the close vicinity of the airport, or having an additional counter at the airport/in the close vicinity of the airport.
We bring you this judgement of the High Court delivered yesterday. Please see 2014-TIOL-2325-HC-DEL-CUS
Customs - Accredited Clients Programme (ACP) - Review by CBEC
IMPORTERS registered by the department as 'Accredited Clients' under the Accredited Clients Programme form a separate category to which assured facilitation is provided and they can clear their goods on self-assessment basis. Separate storage space, handling facility and expeditious clearance procedures will be made available for these clients.
Who are accredited clients?
To be eligible for this status the importer should have inter alia
1. imported goods valued at Rs Ten Crores or paid more than Rs One Crore of Customs duty in the previous financial year or paid Central Excise Duties over Rs. One Crore from the Personal Ledger Account in the previous financial year.
2. filed at least 25 Bills of Entry in the previous year.
3. they should have no cases of Customs, Central Excise or Service Tax, as detailed below, booked against them in the previous three financial years.
(a) Cases of duty evasion involving mis-declaration / mis-statement/collusion / willful suppression / fraudulent intent whether or not extended period for issue of SCN has been invoked.
(b) Cases of mis-declaration and/or clandestine/unauthorized removal of excisable / import / export goods warranting confiscation of said goods.
(c) Cases of mis-declaration / mis-statement / collusion / willful suppression / fraudulent intent aimed at availing CENVAT credit, rebate, refund, drawback, benefits under export promotion/reward schemes.
(d) Cases wherein Customs/Excise duties and Service Tax has been collected but not deposited with the exchequer.
(e) Cases of non-registration with the Department with intent to evade payment of duty/tax".
Board has received a number of representations from the ACP clients whose ACP status has either been withdrawn or not extended on account of them having been served a show cause notice. Board observes that on account of such withdrawal or non-extension of the ACP status, the imports of the affected ACP clients are no longer facilitated which reduces the overall facilitation levels.
As a trade facilitation measure, Board has decided that ACP status of ACP clients which has either been withdrawn or not extended on account of them having been served a show cause notice may be restored as follows:
1. Restored after 3 months if the entity pays the duty demanded with interest and 25% penalty within 30 days of the Show Cause Notice or if the entity's application is allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission.
2. Restored after 6 months if the entity pays the duty demanded with interest.
Board has also decided that the ACP status would not ordinarily be denied to an entity if, in the category of cases specified above, the Customs/Central Excise duty or Service Tax involved is up to Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs, respectively.
Further, in order to encourage greater participation in the ACP, the Risk Management Division (RMD) shall suomoto identify importers eligible for the ACP and approach them to enroll in the programme on 6-monthly basis.
CBEC Circular No. 18/2014-Cus., Dated: December 22, 2014
CBDT Members to Continue in their Earlier Posts
RECENTLY four officers have been appointed as Members of CBDT. Though they have joined the Board, they have not relinquished their earlier charges as no successors were posted. Now CBDT directs that they will continue to hold their earlier posts. So Member (R) Atulesh Jindal will continue to be Pr.CCIT, Delhi; Rani Singh Nair, Member (L&C) will be DGIT(Admn), SM Nigam, Member(IT) continues to be DGIT(IT&TP), while Surabhi Sinha, Member (A&J) is CCIT-2, Delhi. Maybe these CCs and DGs will report to themselves.
CBDT F. No. A-22011/2/2014-Ad-VI(pt)., Dated: December 22, 2014
High Court Strictures Against Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise - Pats Commissioner
IN a recent judgement, the AP High Court came down heavily on a Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax.
The High Court observed,
1. We are indeed shocked to note the manner in which the 3rd respondent (D.C) has treated the petitioner herein.
2. It appears that the officials are accustomed to give rough treatment to assessees and in the process, they did not differentiate between the Government of India undertaking and an ordinary assessee.
3. The Deputy Commissioner i.e., 3rd respondent was supposed to advise the petitioner properly.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) did exhibit objectivity, and acted reasonably.
5. If this is the treatment accorded to a Government of India undertaking, one can easily understand the type of treatment, which the officials of that Department are exhibiting towards ordinary citizens.
6. The attitude of the deponent is worse than that of a seasoned litigant.
7. Unfortunately, it is on account of the irresponsible behaviour of such officers, that the entire Department gets bad reputation.
8. By resorting to objectionable means, the Department is trying to enrich itself, at the cost of the petitioner.
9. If the amount is not refunded, the official who is holding office of the 3rd respondent shall be held personally responsible in the event of any proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act and this Court would consider the feasibility of issuing directions for making adverse entries in the service record of such officer.
We bring you the judgement today - Please see Breaking News
Splitting up of rebate claims to avoid pre-audit- CAG wants Rules amended
CBEC Circular dated 16 May 2008 envisages that all refund/rebate claims involving an amount of Rs. 5 lakh or above should be subjected to pre-audit at the level of Jurisdictional Commissioner.
Recently CAG observed that some assessees were filing several claims for the goods exported on the same day under the same shipping bill. These claims were sanctioned by the Division concerned.
Audit observed that the non-consideration of the total amount claimed on one day as a single claim could result in pre-audit not being conducted as per the provisions.The avoidance of pre-audit not only contravenes the instructions of the Board but also increases the probability of excess grant of rebate.
And so the CAG wanted the CE Rules to be amended.
The CBEC bravely replied to the CAG that There is no statutory bar in filing ARE-1 wise rebate claim, irrespective of the fact that that there is only one shipping bill or more. For excise purpose, ARE-1 is the relevant statutory export document.
But Audit persisted and Board Member told the CAG on 21.10.2014 that instructions to field would be reiterated emphasizing the need to undertake pre-audit as per the Circular in all instances where risk involved was high.
And on 03.11.2014, Board issued a letter to the field directing that Rebate sanctioning authorities may note that they may order pre-audit by clubbing such claims where such claims are artificially split and there is need for pre-audit. (Please see DDT 2469)
Source: CAG's Report No.33 of 2014
Jurisprudentiol-Wednesday's cases
 Central Excise
CENVAT - Wind mill installed by appellant away from factory to generate electricity which has been used in course of business of manufacturing - credit of service tax paid on annual maintenance charges of wind mill is admissible: CESTAT
THE appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts for which they need electricity. The appellants have windmills. They installed windmill away from the factory and the electricity generated from the windmill was transmitted through Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). As the electricity was given to MSEB and in turn equivalent electricity taken from the MSEB, Revenue was of the view that the electricity generated by wind mill has been not used for manufacturing of the final product, therefore, they are not entitled to avail input service credit for the maintenance of the wind mill.
As to how the electricity from windmill and that given by MSEB can be distinguished is the million dollar question but the fact of the matter is that both the lower authorities confirmed the demand against the appellant.
Income Tax
Whether if assessee does not claim Sec 80IA benefits in initial years, same can be claimed in subsequent years when conditions stipulated are fulfilled - YES: HC
THE assessee concern is engaged in the business of forging and manufacturing of various types of auto parts. It had filed its return for the AY 2001-02, declaring total income of Rs.47,66,167/-. It had also claimed deduction u/s 80I in the relevant year whereas the business was started on 25.09.1991. It was also contended by the assessee that it became entitled to deduction after purchasing the new machinery. However, AO rejected the claim of the assessee. On appeal, CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. On further appeal, Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the revenue and confirmed the order of the CIT(A).
The issue before the Bench is - Whether if assessee does not claim Sec 80IA benefits in initial years, same can be claimed in subsequent years when conditions stipulated are fulfilled. YES is the answer.
Customs
Royalty paid for Process knowhow and various fees paid for basic engineering services and supervisory services are includible in AV of equipment imported u/r 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(e) of CVR, 1988 as these payments are integrally connected with supply of the equipment and formed part of a package deal - Appeal dismissed: CESTAT
THE appellant imported capital goods, equipment, components, etc. for the initial setting up of a plant to manufacture ‘hot briquette sponge iron' in Raigad District under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. For this purpose they entered into four agreements, all dated 22/10/1989 with two foreign suppliers/collaborators. The agreements pertained to (a) Supply of Equipment Agreement; (b) Basic Engineering Services Agreement; (c) Process Licence Agreement and (d) Supervisory Services Agreement. The suppliers and the appellant are not related.
There is no dispute about the includibility of the amount paid for equipment supply. The dispute is about the balance 3 agreements relating to basic engineering services, process licence and supervisory services agreement.
See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in |
Download PDF
