AIT NEWS-19

Sudha Sharma appointed as Member of CBDT Rupee hits a high of 48.73 against Dollar Excise Officers caught burning official files in midight in Aligarh after Income Tax raids on Ponty Chadha SC cancels 122 licences issued by A Raja during his tenure as Telecom Minister Laxman Das is Officiating Chairman of CBDT Tariff Value for import of gold is 556 & for silver 1067 & for Brass Scrap 4078 & for poppy seeds 2205-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Fused Silica is classifiable under Tariff Item 32074000-Customs Circular No.3 Additional Commisssioner of Income Tax HA Siddiqui sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for accepting bribe of Rs 1 Lakh by CBI Court in Delhi Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 50.20 Per US Dollar & Rs 66 per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 49.40 per US Dollar & Rs 64.40 per EURO HC upholds levy of service tax on booking of flats-The explanation which was inserted by the Finance Act of 2010 clearly brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether before, during or after construction Authority for Advance Ruling rules super concentrates shall be classified as products of the chemical industry under heading 3824 90 90 of Customs Tariff Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Morpholine from China European Union & USA Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Geogrid/Geostrips/ Geostraps made of polyester or Glass fiber in all its forms from Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty (Paid in Excess of Actual Margin of Dumping) Rules, 2012 notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.5 Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Amendment Rules, 2012-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.6 Safeguard duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem notified on import of Phthalic anhydride, falling under tariff item 2917 35 00-Customs SG Notification No.1 Customs duty on import of Gold, Silver, Cut & Polished Diamonds hiked Customs duty to be charged at the rate of 2 per cent of Tariff Value on gold and 6 per cent of Tariff Value on silver Tariff Value for import of gold & silver notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.3 Anti-dumping duty on imports ofSilk fabrics 20-100 gms per metre, falling under heading 5007 originating in, or exported from, China-CustomsTariff Notification No. 2 Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Nylon Filament Yarn, falling under Chapter 54 ,originating in, or exported from, China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Thailand and Korea RP-Customs TariffNotification No.3 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phosphoric Acid of allgrades and all concentrations (excluding Agriculture/Fertilizer Grade) ,falling under tariff item 28092010, originating in, or exported from, Israel and Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.4 Anti-dumping duty on imports of Cellophane Transparent Film , falling under Chapter 39 , originating in, or exported from, China-Customs TariffNotification No.5 Anti-dumping duty onimports of Saccharin, falling under Chapters 29, 30, 33 and 38 ,originating in, or exported from, China-Customs Tariff Notification No.7 Special Bench of ITAT rules the appellant is not entitled to set off carry forward business loss against the long term capital gain arising on sale of land used for the purpose business ITAT rules Long Term and Short Term gains / losses on sale of equity shares under Portfolio Management Scheme is business income and not Capital Gains HC rules the opinion of the AO may have been legally erroneous but this cannot be a ground for initiation of re-assessment proceedings Anti-dumping duty on ‘Caustic Soda’, originating in, or exported from, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, USA & France-Customs Tariff Notification No.1 Cost Accountants can issue Certificates for the purpose of refund of 4% CVD-Customs Circular No.1 Customs duty on import from ASEAN nations lowered- Customs Tariff Notification No.127 deeper tariff cut on import from Malaysia notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.128 deeper tariff cuts on import from Korea notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.123 deeper tariff cuts on import from Srilanka & Pakistan under SAFTA notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.125 Schedule of Rates for Service Tax Refund to Exporters notified in supersession of Notification No.17/2009-Service Tax Notification No. 52 Customs duty on import of several products from specified countries lowered-Customs Tariff Notification No.113 Anti-dumping duty on ‘Sodium Hydrosulphite (SHS)’, falling under headings 2831 and 2832 , originating in, or exported from, China PR- Customs Tariff Notification No.111 CBEC specifies documents required for Registration of ServiceTax Customs duty on import of 532 Products from Singapore lowered-many products exempted from duty-Customs Tariff Notification No. 106 Government allows Rebate of excise duty on export of goods to Nepal under ARE-1 Procedure w.e.f. 1st March 2012-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.24

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

DGFT Notification 19 ultra vires Section 5 of FTDR Act:HC

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. In a major setback to DGFT; vide a landmark ruling Delhi High Court vide a recent ruling has struck down Notification No.19 dated 4.7.2006 issued by DGFT holding it as ultra vires Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

DGFT vide Notification No.19 had notified that the transitional arrangements notified under para 1.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy ,2006 shall not be applicable for export of pulses against irrevocable LC opened on or after 22.6.2006 as the decision of the Government prohibiting the export of pulses was announced and got widely publicised on 22.6.2006 in the electronic and print media.

As a fallout of ruling Export of pulses will be allowed on irrevocable Letter of Credits opened between 22.06.2006 and 27.06.2006

T H E F A C T S:

· Petitioner No.1, a Company having its registered office in Mumbai, is a subsidiary of Petitioner No.2 (Agrocorp International Pte. Ltd.) which is a company incorporated in Singapore. It is the case of the petitioners that on 12.6.2006, the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) invited international bids for the supply of 150,000 MT of Chick Peas. Petitioner No.2 is stated to have submitted its bids some time in the first week of June 2006. On 17.6.2006 it was awarded two contracts for supply of 15,000 MT each of Chick Peas at USD 624 per MT and USD 650 per MT respectively. One of the terms of the contract was that the awardee of the contract was required to submit, by 22.6.2006, a Performance Guarantee equivalent to 5 per cent of the value of the contracted quantity. It was stated that on 20.6.2006 the Petitioner No.2 furnished a combined Performance Guarantee equivalent to 5 per cent of the value of the contracted quantity under the two contracts, through a bank in Singapore. The petitioners submitted that the contract for supply of Chick Peas to TCP in the agreed quantities stood concluded by this date.

· The petitioners stated that from 21.6.2006 they started mobilizing Chick Peas for export and for this purpose engaged the services of Emmsons International Limited located in Delhi, to procure and arrange for the consignments to reach the port at Kandla from where they would be shipped either to the Bin Qasim Port or the Karachi Port.

· Around this time, the Cabinet Committee on Pricing was engaged in finding means to tackle the seasonal rise in the prices of some essential commodities. The Central Government identified three essential commodities that were driving the prices up - wheat, sugar and pulses. At a Meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Pricing held on 22.6.2006, it was decided that there would be a ban on the export of pulses with a view to augmenting the supply side. It was decided to allow private players to import wheat and to a limited extent,sugar.

· The Finance Minister met the Press soon after the Meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Pricing and announced these decisions. The newspapers of 23.6.2006 (photocopies of the news clippings have been placed on record) prominently announced the aforesaid decision of the Government of India. The Asian Age and the National Herald from New Delhi, both dated 23.6.2006, indicated in the headlines that the export of pulses was banned. The government claims that the electronic media also carried this news on 22.6.2006 itself.

· Admittedly, the aforementioned ban on the export of pulses was not issued in the form of a notification simultaneously. That notification was issued on 27.6.2006, five days after the news of the ban appeared in the press.

· Three days prior to the notification, on 24.6.2006, pursuant to the contract entered into between the TCP and Petitioner No.2, and the furnishing of the Performance Guarantee by the petitioners, two irrevocable letters of credit (LCs) were opened by the TCP in favour of Petitioner No.1 through M/s Habib Bank Limited for USD 10,237,500 and USD 9,828,000 respectively. On 27.6.2006, the petitioners filed their shipping bills, proforma invoices for export of the 30,000 MT of Chick Peas at Kandla. However, the Customs authorities did not permit the shipment to take place and orally asked the petitioners to seek clarification from the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
On 27.6.2006 by a notification the Central Government made amendments to the Policy prohibiting the export of several pulses.

T H E R U L I N G:

· Petitioner No.1 is registered in Mumbai and Petitioner No.2 in Singapore and the shipment of the export is to be made from Kandla in Gujarat. However, the impugned Notification dated 4.7.2006, and the earlier Notification dated 27.6.2006 imposing the ban on export of Chick Peas were issued by the DGFT in Delhi. What is centrally challenged in this writ petition is the Notification issued by the DGFT in Delhi. The facts pleaded in the writ petition show that these facts are integral to the cause of action which arose in Delhi, namely, the issuance of Notification dated 4.7.2006 by the DGFT, Delhi. We accordingly hold that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

· There is no power in the central government in terms of Section 5 of the Act to give retrospective effect to a notification issued under that provision.

· There is no merit in the submission of the respondents that the ban imposed on the export of pulses became effective on 22.6.2006 when it was announced in the media and not on 27.6.2006 when it was actually notified in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 5 of the Act.

· A delegated legislation cannot seek to override the main section under which it is made, in this case, Section 5. On this short ground it must be held that the impugned Notification dated 4.7.2006 is ultra vires Section 5 of the Act.

· The public interest mantra cannot be repeated as a panacea for avoiding the consequence of mandatory legal provisions. It is not possible to adopt one yardstick when the Government seeks to grant a benefit and the other when it seeks to withdraw it.

· we hold that the impugned Notification dated 4.7.2006 is ultra vires Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and strike down the said Notification as such

( Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-124-HC )