In the issue Customs
Foreign trade policy (FTP) Anti-dumping duty
Contacts
Staying Updated
Customs, FTP and WTO newsletter
In the issue Customs Case law Classification
• Where goods were classifiable under two or more headings, goods had to be classified under heading occurring last in numerical order, amongst those equally meriting consideration
Others
• Refund of excess duty paid held liable to be rejected where duty incidence formed part of capital goods, and the same was capitalised as fixed assets in the balance sheet
• Where excess duty paid was shown as recoverable in the balance sheet, refund held available as it was established that the excess payment was not passed on to the buyer Foreign trade policy
Notifications and circulars
• Central Government has made changes in the procedure relating to
tracking and tracing of export consignment of pharmaceuticals and drugs
Case law
• The excise authorities held to have no jurisdiction to decide quantum of Domestic Tariff Area sale
entitlements, as such jurisdiction vested with Development
Commissioner of Export Oriented Unit
• Any changes in law subsequently would not affect the contractual obligations of already existing contracts as any oppressive amendments to the policy were applicable only prospectively Anti-dumping duty
• Central Government has extended levy of anti-dumping duty on import of Steel and Fibre Glass Tapes and their parts and components, falling under CTH 9017 80 10 or 9017 90 00 or 8486 90 00, originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China, till 14 May, 2015
July 2014: Volume 17 Issue 04
In the issue Customs
Foreign trade policy (FTP) Anti-dumping duty Contacts
Customs
Notifications and circulars
• The Central Government has clarified that import of any sub-standard CRGO steel sheets/strips in contravention of the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2012 should not be allowed.
(Instruction F. No. 450/71/2014-Cus IV dated 9 July, 2014)
Case law Classification
• In ETA General Pvt LtdvCC (2014- TIOL-1094-CESTAT-MAD), the Chennai Tribunal held that where the legal text of a heading excluded goods used for domestic purposes, the individual sub-heading under the said heading could not be said to include something that was excluded from the scope of the heading itself.
• The Mumbai Tribunal, in CCvRed Bull India Pvt Ltd (2014-TIOL-1190-
CESTAT-MUM), held that an energy drink that was a caffeinated beverage, and not mineral or aerated water. It was classifiable under Customs Tariff
Heading (CTH) 2202 90 90, and not
heading that occurred last in numerical order, amongst those equally meriting consideration.
Others
• The Delhi Tribunal, in Rockman Industries LtdvCC (2014-TIOL-1226- CESTAT-DEL), held that the refund claim was liable to be rejected if filed beyond the prescribed statutory period, which was calculated from date of payment of duty, and not from the date of acceptance of survey to be
undertaken, in case of damaged goods.
• In Om UdyogvCC (2014-TIOL-1062- CESTAT-DEL), the Delhi Tribunal held that the refund claim of Special
Additional Duty (SAD) was liable to rejected where the invoices did not state that ‘no credit of SAD levied under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is admissible’, as the refund of SAD was operated through provisions of
exemption notification which depended on satisfaction of conditions.
• The Mumbai Tribunal, in CCvHind Offshore Pvt Ltd (2014-TIOL-1092- CESTAT-MUM), held that a refund of excess duty paid was liable to be rejected where the duty incidence had
In the issue Customs
Foreign trade policy (FTP) Anti-dumping duty Contacts
• In CCvCrystal Granite & Marble (P) Ltd (2014 (304) ELT 572), the Mumbai Tribunal held that refund claim of SAD could not be denied where the importer had submitted the invoices along with Profit and Loss Account and CA’s certificate to establish that the burden of duty was not passed on to the customers.
• The Delhi Tribunal, in Deepak InternationalvCC (2014 (304) ELT 438), held that where the excess duty paid was shown as recoverable in the Balance Sheet supported with Chartered Accountant’s certificate and photocopies of invoice, it was established that the excess payment was not passed on to the buyer. Consequently, refund would be available, regardless of non-
production of original invoice.
• In Hyundai Motor India Ltdv
Revisional Authority (2014 (304) ELT 527), the Madras High Court held that where the revision application was dispatched through post within the period of limitation, but was received by the authorities after period of
limitation, it should be treated as having been filed in time.
In the issue Customs
Foreign trade policy (FTP)
Anti-dumping duty Contacts
Foreign trade policy
Notifications and circulars
• The Central Government has removed Alex Stewart International (Aust) Pty Ltd, Australia from the list of inspection and certification agencies with effect from 4 July, 2014.
(Public Notice No. 64(RE-2013)/2009- 14 dated 4 July, 2014)
• The Central Government has revised the import policy of item ‘foie gras’ from
‘free’ to ‘prohibited’.
(Notification No. 87(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 3 July, 2014)
• The Central Government has made the following changes in the procedure relating to tracking and tracing of export consignment of pharmaceuticals and drugs:
− The requirement of affixing barcodes on primary level packaging has been deferred till a new date is notified
− Requirement of affixing bar codes on tertiary level and secondary level packaging continue to be in force
− Mono cartons earlier treated as part of primary packaging are now
Case law
• The Mumbai Tribunal, in Leighton Contactors India Pvt LtdvCC (2014- TIOL-1133-CESTAT-MUM), held that old and used buoyancy tanks along with other material required for laying off- shore pipeline could not be confiscated, since these were capital goods which could be freely imported.
• In J K ImpexvCC (2014-TIOL-1104- CESTAT-MAD), the Chennai Tribunal held that there was no reason for reduction in fine for importation of second-hand photocopier machines without and import licence in a case where the importer was a habitual offender.
• The Ahmedabad Tribunal, in Global EximvCC (2014-TIOL-1247-CESTAT- AHM), held that any subsequent changes in law would not affect the contractual obligations of already existing contracts as any oppressive amendments to the policy were applicable only prospectively.
• In A G EnterprisevCC (2014-TIOL- 1268-CESTAT-AHM), the Ahmedabad Tribunal held that any clarification issued by office of Directorate General
In the issue Customs
Foreign trade policy (FTP)
Anti-dumping duty Contacts
• The Mumbai Tribunal, in Shreyas Intermediates LtdvCCE (2014 (304) ELT 419), held that the excise
authorities had no jurisdiction to decide quantum of Domestic Tariff Area sale entitlements, as such jurisdiction vested with Development Commissioner of Export Oriented Unit.
• In Chennai Marine Trading (P) LtdvCC (2014 (304) ELT 354), the Madras High Court held that redemption fine was leviable on import of restricted goods even though permission had been granted to re-export such goods.
• The Mumbai Tribunal, in CCvMedi Pharma Drug House (2014 (304) ELT 432), held that redemption fine could not be imposed when goods were not available for confiscation.
In the issue Customs
Foreign trade policy (FTP) Anti-dumping duty Contacts
Anti-dumping duty Notifications
• The Central Government has extended levy of anti-dumping duty on imports of Steel and Fibre Glass Tapes and their parts and components, falling under Custom Tariff 9017 80 10 or 9017 90 00 or 8486 90 00, originating in or
exported from the People’s Republic of China, till 14 May, 2015.
(Customs (ADD) Notification No.
29/2014 dated 4 July, 2014)
In the issue CENVAT Service tax
VAT/Entry tax/Sales tax Contacts
For private circulation only
This publication does not constitute professional advice. The information in this publication has been obtained or derived from sources believed by PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (PwCPL) to be reliable but PwCPL does not represent that this information is accurate or complete. Any opinions or estimates contained in this publication represent the judgment of PwCPL at this time and are subject to change without notice. Readers of this publication are advised to seek their own professional advice before taking any course of action or decision, for which they are entirely responsible, based on the contents of this publication. PwCPL neither accepts or assumes any responsibility or liability to any reader of this publication in respect of the information contained within it or for any decisions readers may take or decide not to or fail to take.
© 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited. All rights reserved. In this document, “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (a limited liability company in India having Corporate Identity Number or CIN : U74140WB1983PTC036093), which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL), each member firm of About PwC
PwC* helps organisations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We are a network of firms in 157 countries with more than 184,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services.
PwC India refers to the network of PwC firms in India, having offices in: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune. For more information about PwC India's service offerings, please visit www.pwc.in.
*PwC refers to PwC India and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.
Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at www.pwc.in.
Contacts Delhi
Vivek Mishra/R Muralidharan Ph: +91 (124) 3306000 Mumbai
Dharmesh Panchal/S Satish Ph: +91 (22) 6689 1000 Kolkata
Gopal Agarwal
Ph: +91 (33) 2357 9100/4404 6000 Bangalore
Pramod Banthia
Ph: +91 (80) 4079 6000
Hyderabad
Ananthanarayanan S Ph: +91 (40) 4424 6363 Chennai
Harisudhan M
Ph: +91 (44) 4228 5000 Pune
Nitin Vijaivergia
Ph: +91 (20) 4100 4444 Ahmedabad
Dharmesh Panchal/Niren Shethia Ph: +91 (22) 6689 1000
