Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com HRindiaonline.com
 
LOGIN
Forgot Password |  Register
Tuesday , April 21, 2015 | Updated : Apr 21, 18:21 IST
Income Tax    Customs    Excise    Service Tax    FEMA    DGFT    SEZ    Misc    Pitara    Budget   
About Us Contact Us Advertise
Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com
NEWS FLASH
 
CBI nabs Mumbai-based CX Superintendent & Chandigarh-based EPF official demanding bribe CBDT bags Prime Minister's Award for excellence in Public Administration (See 'Mixed Buzz') Interest rate for provident fund and other similar funds fixed at 8.7 percent for 2015-16 (See 'Mixed Buzz') Govt approves Rs.500 cr price stabilization fund for perishable agri-horticultural commodities (See 'Mixed Buzz') CST - Whether where no demand is made after scrutiny, it is open to Revenue at time of issuance of Form-C, to discover something beyond what is required and refuse to issue Form-C, even if assessee has paid tax - NO: HC (See 'Breaking News') Climate change a challenge, not business opportunity: Environment Minister (See 'Mixed Buzz') CX - Cocoa Shells arise unavoidably during process of manufacturing cocoa butter and powder from beans - they are nothing but by-product - no question of payment of any amount under rule 6(2) when Cocoa shells are cleared at Nil duty rate: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') WTO - Concerns about investment measures favouring local products in India (See 'DDT') I-T - Whether if two notices are issued to assessee on different dates, it vitiates order passed under Sec 263 - NO: ITAT (See 'Breaking News') India should act on IMF's generic advice on energy tax reforms (See 'TIOL Edit') NDPS - Convicted for possession of drugs on date of enactment of Act - Accused came into possession prior to enactment - Thus, it was possession in continuum and hence, principle with regard to continuing offence gets attracted: SC (See 'Breaking News') Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 - CBEC Explains (See 'DDT') I-T-Whether assessee is entitled for claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(ii), if he has failed to establish that payments by him to concerned persons are by way of commission - NO: HC (See '2015-TIOL-968') FM hails progress made in BEPS Project (See 'Mixed Buzz') High Level 'Customs Clearance Facilitation Committee' (CCFC) (See 'DDT') Meerut Central Excise arrests erection & commissioning service provider for collecting ST of Rs 4.5 Crore but not depositing in Govt a/c Relief for farmers - Govt eases quality norms for procurement of wheat IGI Airport Customs seizes more than 21 kg gold worth Rs 5.9 Crore from pax coming from Dubai Anti-dumping duty on Phenol extended for one more year (See Notifn No 14 in 'What's New') Beep, Beep... BIPA & Taxation (See 'EDIT' in Taxindiainternational.com) Cus - Valuation - Arbitrary loading of 1% as loading, unloading and handling charge, unsustainable - will apply only when actual charges are not ascertainable - Supreme Court (See 'Breaking News') Cus - Drawback - deemed Imported Goods - CBEC amends the wrong notification (See 'DDT') I-T - Whether when CBDT issues directions to field formations for proper administration, it is to be construed as giving directions for doing assessment in particular manner - NO: ITAT (See 'Breaking News') Spectre of Section 35C(2A) rises again (See 'Guest Column') Civil Services Day - PM to release 'Best Practices - Tomorrow is Here'(See 'Mixed Buzz') CX - CENVAT Credit on inputs used in intermediate goods manufactured in other factories under Strategic Alliance Agreement - Credit is admissible: High Court (See 'Breaking News') Babus can accept gifts up to Rs. 25,000 (See 'DDT' Column) VAT - Whether 'Marker' & 'Highlighter' would fall in category of 'all types of pen', for purpose of levying tax at rate of 8% - YES: HC (See 'Breaking News') Cr.PC - Public servants have, in fact, been treated as special category under Section 197 CrPC, to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution - Such protection from harassment is given in public interest; same cannot be treated as shield to protect corrupt officials (See 'DDT') CII supports Rs 40,000 Cr tax demand raised against FIIs Budget Session going to be full of 'outcomes': PM Revise Lame-duck real estate bill to spawn employment & growth (See 'Ice Cubes') MoF to hold meeting with CMDs of PSBs over funding of major infra projects
 
Bookmark and Share
RAISING DEMAND FOR MISUSE OF END-USE EXEMPTION A DEMANDING ISSUE!

RAISING DEMAND FOR MISUSE OF END-USE EXEMPTION A DEMANDING ISSUE!

By R Raghavendra Rao

HOW to demand Customs duty when any post-import condition is violated? If we take one such Notification, the most famous 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88, it imposed a post-import obligation of giving free treatment to 40 per cent of the outdoor patients. How to demand duty when the importer does not satisfy the condition therein? Can the duty be demanded under Section 28? Well, the issue makes an interesting study. First, we have the answer in Board’s Circular 73/2000 dated 1.9.2000.

The said circular discusses the issue in detail and clarifies that:

“In number of cases the Department has invoked provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act for realization of customs duty on the ground that the post-importation condition, as stipulated in Notification No. 64/88, had not been fulfilled. In many of the cases proviso to Section 28(1) were also invoked alleging suppression, mis-declaration etc. Sometimes the duties were demanded under Section 28 even for importation which had taken place more than five years before the issue of show cause notice. In many of the cases such demand notices were set aside by the appellate authorities holding that there was no justification for alleging suppression or mis-declaration and since the notice was not issued within normal time limit, the demand of duty was not sustainable.”

“References were made to Law Ministry. It has been opined that notification like No. 64/88-Cus., which put post-import conditions of continuing nature, every day of breach, starts a new limitation for the purpose of Section 28. Accordingly, the limitation for violation of post-import obligations would start from the last day of violation preceding initiation of proceedings. In the second reference, it was clarified by the Law Ministry that Section 28 appears to deal with cases where the duty was leviable at the point of import but was somehow not levied or short-levied, that it does not appear to cover cases where duty was not leviable at the time of import because of conditional exemption but became leviable subsequently by reasons of subsequent events”.

“Field formations are advised to issue show cause notices for demand of duty by invoking the provisions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, without mentioning Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherever the normal period of limitation i.e. one year provided under Section 28 (1) (a) is over”.

“The instructions contained in this letter will apply mutatis mutandis to other exemption notifications also where post-import conditions as stipulated in the notification are not fulfilled”.

For the time being let us keep the Board’s Circular aside and go through the two clarifications given by the Ministry of law, enclosed to the above circular. If we examine the same, we find some interesting argument.

(1) Ministry of Law, Justice & Co. Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs

The objection is whether duty demand would be time bound. Section 28(1)(a) provides for a one year limitation where duty has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneously refunded. The Section appears to deal with cases where the duty was leviable at the point of import but was somehow not levied or short-levied. It does not appear to cover cases where duty was not leviable at the time of import because of conditional exemption but became leviable subsequently by reason of subsequent events. In the present case, the importer was entitled to exemption subject to meeting the continuing obligation. The duty liability would arise when that obligation is not satisfied. Hence, it appears possible to demand duty if the beneficiary hospitals are not meeting the obligation any more.

(2) Department of Legal Affairs

CBEC has raised a query as to whether a notice for demand can be issued for a period beyond five years in respect of duty exemption wrongly availed under Exemption Notification No. 64/88.

In Mediwell Hospital case ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-69-SC-Cus ), the Supreme Court classified the conditions into pre-conditions and post-conditions. The Apex Court further held that the very notification granting exemption must be construed to cast continuing obligation on the part of all those who have obtained the certificate from the authority and on the basis of that to have imported equipments of customs duty to give free treatment at least to 40% of the out-door patients as well as would give free treatment to all the indoor patients belonging to the families within income less than Rs. 500 per month.

From the above background it appears that the above cases dealt with the duty liability because of non-compliance of post-importation conditions which are not only in para 4(b) of the Table but in para 2 of the Table as well. Since the post-importation conditions are continuing obligations, it appears that everyday of breach starts a new limitation for the purpose of section 28.

Now, as per the clarification at Sl No 1 above, the situation is not covered under Section 28 as it is not a case where the duty was short levied or not levied at the time of import. But as per Sl No 2, Section 28 is not altogether ruled out because “it appears that every day breach starts a new limitation for the purpose of Section 28”.

The issue is so complex that there is contradiction even within the clarification by Ministry of Law! If Section 28 is not applicable for such demands as clarified at point No 1, then where is the question of any limitation for the purpose of Section 28 in Point No 2?

Interestingly the Board’s Circular also does not clear the confusion. It says “Filed formations are advised to issue show cause notices for demand of duty by invoking the provisions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, without mentioning Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherever the normal period of limitation i.e. one year provided under Section 28 (1) (a) is over.

Does this mean, if the normal period is not over, can the demand be made under Section 28(1)(a)? If the provisions of Section 28 are not applicable as clarified by MOL in point no 1, then how demand can be made for normal period under the same Section?

Now let us go through some of the decisions on this tricky issue:

Karnataka High Court in Medical relief society of south kanara Vs Union of India ( 2003-Taxindiaonline-35-HC-KAR-CUS ).

“Failure to discharge that obligation was liable to expose the equipment to confiscation besides entitling the respondent to recover the amount of duty payable on the same. Proceedings for recovery of the exempted customs duty or the confiscation of the equipment in the above circumstances does not fall foul of Section 28”.

In yet another case, Lady Amphthil Nurses Instns. Vs Commissioner of Cus., Chennai ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-43-Cestat-Del-LB ), it was held :

56. Thus infringement could be only prospective from the date of clearance of the goods. Since it was a post-importation obligation, therefore, liability to pay duty or confiscation of the goods could arise only subsequent to the date of clearance of the goods. In the absence of any specific period, the liability could arise only when there is infringement of the condition and hence Section 28 did not apply.

Interestingly in para 39 and 40 of the above decision, the ratio of Karnataka High Court was followed as under:

40. It would thus be clear that the above decision of the High Court decides that (a) Customs can start recovery proceeds, (b) Recovery will be of the amount which was exempted, (c) equipment can be confiscated, and (d) proceedings of recovery do not fall foul of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

A combined reading of para 39,40 and 56 of the above larger bench decision gives an impression that only limitation under Section 28 is not applicable, but the case would not fall foul of Section 28 .

Finally after going through the Board’s Circular, opinion by the Ministry of law and the above case law, I am confused as to:

+ Whether any demand of customs duty can be made under the Customs Act without mentioning Section 28?

+ If the duty has to be demanded in terms of the Notification, what is the time limit?

+ When Section 28 is not applicable, and duty has to demanded only in terms of the Notification, where is the question of every day breach and limitation for the purpose of Section 28

Fortunately I got answers to all above. Not from the Board’s Circular, not from the opinion of Ministry of law not from Section 28, but from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Cancer Research Centre Vs Commissioner of Customs ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-119-SC-CUS ) held:

A reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 125 together makes it clear that liability to pay duty arises under sub-section (2) in addition to the fine under sub-section (1). Therefore, where an order is passed for payment of customs duty along with an order of imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation of goods, it shall only be referable to sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Customs Act. It would not attract Section 28(1) of the Customs Act which covers the cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc.

So, when any duty has to be recovered for violation of post-import condition, one has to issue show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act proposing confiscation of the goods invoking Section 111(o) and order for payment of duty in addition to fine under sub section (2) of Section 125. Hence it is requested that suitable fresh clarification may be issued in this regard.

(The author is Superintendent of Central Excise and the veiws expressed are personal. The author can be mailed at rags68@rediffmail.com )


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
 
Subscribe to TIOLTube
Download TIOL App
TIOL SEARCH
 
TIOL Subscriptions
 All-In-One Package
 Indirect Tax Package
 Income Tax Package
<< More Packages>>
 
   
             
Income Tax Customs Excise Service Tax FEMA DGFT SEZ Misc Pitara Budget
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • ITAT Cases
  • Instructions
  • Advance Ruling
  • Settlement
  • Other Case
  • Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Safeguard Duty Notfn
  • Anti-dumping Notfn
  • Drawback Cases
  • MISC Circulars
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Excise Amendment
  • Clean Energy Cess Notfn
  • MISC Circulars
  • 37B Order
  • Commr.(A) Order
  • CESTAT
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Miscellaneous
  • Advance Ruling
  • FAQ
  • Finance Act, 1994
  • Commr. (A) Orders
  • 37B Order
  • Removal of Difficulty
  • VCES
  • Accounting Head
  • Exchange Manual
  • Fema Notifications
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • RBI Notifications
  • Act
  • Rules
  • Regulations
  • Master Circulars
  • RBI Circulars
  • Depository Scheme
  • Press Note
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • Public Notices
  • Trade Notice
  • FTDR Amendment 2010
  • MISC
  • State Acts
  • Notifications
  • Instructions
  • Act 2005
  • Rules 2006
  • DGEP
  • State Policy
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • VAT Cases
  • Deputation Posts
  • Service News
  • The Insider
  • Transfer
  • Promotion
  • Recruitment Rules
  • Transfer Policy
  • Training Circulars
  • Service Cases
  • MISC
  • Pay Commission
  • Cadre Review
  • Budget Circular
  • Union Budgets
  • Economic Surveys
  • Budget Speeches
  • Finance Acts
  • Finance Bill
  • TRU - D. O. Letter
  • A Taxindiaonline Website. Copyright © 2014 Taxindiaonline.com Pvt.Ltd. All rights reserved. | Powered by 4th Dimension