The issue has been examined in the Board. It is clarified that Neck Ties are basically clothing accessories, which are covered by Customs Tariff Heading 62.15. The said Custom Tariff heading does not find mention any where in the Drawback Table. The reason being that no data has been received from the Export Promotion Councils for formulating the All Industry Rate of Drawback for this item. Hence, these products are not eligible for All Industry Rate of Drawback
For the purpose of adjudication of the case pertaining to the exports made by M/s. Universal Garments, N-40 Commercial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, in respect of show cause notice DRI.F.NO.50D/54/98-CI dated the 12th September, 2000, issued by the Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, D Block, Indraprastha Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110 002.
The principal Notification No.12/97-Customs(N.T.), dated the 2nd April,1997 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part-II, section 3, sub-section(i), vide G.S.R.193(E) dated the 2nd April,1997 and subsequently amended by Notification No.7/98-Customs(N.T.), dated the 4th February,1998, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part-II, section 3, sub-section(i), vide G.S.R.67(E) dated the 4th February,1998.
Furthermore, where provisional assessment is being resorted to, the investigation and finalisation of the assessment must be completed within four months from the date of reply. If no decision is taken within 4 months, the extra duty deposit should be discontinued and the concerned Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner will be held responsible for inexplicable delay in finalisation.
The issue has been examined. The applicability of drawback caps should be decided taking into account the normal commercial practice of marketing, packing and invoicing, i.e., whether the goods like Lehnga-Choli. Skirt-Blouse, etc, are being sold as one unit of ready made garment at one price or these are individual components and being asked for buyers as separate pieces of garments and invoices issued separately (or prices shown separately on the same invoice)
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 3/2001-NT-Customs, [S.O.74(E)] dated the 25th January, 2001 the Central Government hereby determines for the purposes of said section in so far as these relate to export goods, that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in the column (2) of Schedule I and Schedule II appended hereto into Indian Currency or vice versa shall, with effect from the 1st March, 2001.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (2 of 1899) and sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supercession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.2/2001-NT-Customs, [S.O.73(E)] dated the 25th January, 2001.
Compliance to the mandatory Indian Quality Standards as mentioned in Column 2 of the Annexure to notification no. 44 dated 24.11.2000, shall not be applicable on imports made under Annual Advance Licences and Advance Licences for physical exports issued with actual user condition, (para 7.4 and 7.4A of Exim Policy prior to RE-2000 and 7.3 of Exim Policy RE-2000) and on imports made by 100% EOUs and units in EPZ/SEZ. Similarly the imports made for re-export purposes as per para 5.7 and para 7.5 of the Exim Policy shall also be exempt from the above mentioned qulilty standards.
In order to take care of this problem he has suggested issue of a Notification under Section 81 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 specifying the maximum time limit within which the passengers should make a declaration before Customs. Since this Notification will have implication for all the passengers coming at any of the Airport, the matter may be examined regarding the implication of the proposal; suggested time limit ( 4 hours or any other time frame); as also the type of penal provision that may be imposed for the failure to adhere to the condition.
Circular No. 572/9/2001-CX I am directed to state that it has come to notice of the Board that doubts prevail in the field formations in regard to action to be taken for disposal of refund/rebate cases where the matter is pending with different appellate authorities. In this regard, attention is drawn to the CBEC Circular No.398/31/98-CX dated 2nd June, 1998 and the CBEC Circular No.76/95-Cus dated 28th June, 1995. After examining the issue in detail and in suppression of the aforementioned Circulars,
