It has been brought to the notice of Board that significant time is taken by the importers for payment of duty after the Bill of Entry is assessed. This increases overall dwell time for cargo clearance as well as straining our infrastructure at customs ports. As a step to reduce the time gap between assessment and payment of duty, the Board has decided to introduce a system of disincentive.
I am directed to invite your attention to Board’s Circular No. 110/2003-Cus, dated 22.12.2003 and Ministry’s letter issued vide F.No.450/108/2004-CUS-IV dated 31.12.04. The intention of these prevailing instructions is to ensure that that the filing of import manifest is not unnecessarily delayed.
In this year’s budget 2005-06, an excise duty of 2% has been imposed on branded articles of jewellery of heading 7113 of the Central Excise Tariff. The duty is leviable only if the brand name or the trade name, as defined, is indelibly affixed or embossed on the article of jewellery itself.
Only the Clearing Corporation/House of the Stock Exchanges shall be permitted to act as Approved Intermediaries (AIs) under the Securities Lending Scheme (SLS) to borrow and lend securities to meet the settlement shortages.
I am directed to invite your attention to para (xi) of the Circular No. 54/2004-Cus dated 13th October, 2004 regarding other provisions of the FTP relating to EOU and Gem and Jewellery Schemes. It was informed in that circular that paras 6.39.1 to 6.39.13 of the HOP relating to Fast Track clearances for EOU’s, are under review and its implementation may be deferred till a final view is communicated by this Ministry.
The undersigned is directed to invite your attention to the above mentioned subject and to say that a doubt has been raised as to whether 2% Education Cess needs to be factored in Brand Rates and Special Brand Rates of duty drawback determined under Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995.
The said Circular was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi side its order dated 21. l l .2003 holding that these processes would not amcunt to manufacture. Department’s appeal filed against Delhi High Court Order b.as been dismissed by Hon ‘ b1e Supreme Court.
I am directed to say that certain references were received from field formations raising doubts over the applicability of notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) dated 26th June, 2001dealing with the procedure of export under Bond to Nepal and Bhutan to merchant exporters. A view was expressed that since the notification No. 45/2001-CE(NT) dated 26th June, 2001
I am directed to invite your kind attention to Board’s Circulars No. 9/83-CX 6 dated 20.6.1983 and No. 33/90-CX 8 dated 31.09.1990 vide which procedure and monetary limits for pre-audit/post audit of refund and rebate claims were prescribed. Subsequently, Board vide Circular No. 627/18/2002-CX dated 15th march, 2002 had revised the monetary limits of the claims below which selective post-audit could take place
I am directed to draw your attention to this Department’s Notification No.6/2005-CE (NT) dated 24.2.2005, issued from F.No.4/3/2002-CX.I (Part-II), which notifies that the Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2004 will come into force with effect from 28th February 2005. The said Act is being uploaded on the CBEC website, (www.cbec.gov.in).
