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
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)
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,
Circular No.571/8/2001-CX I am directed to say that the Board has reviewed the working of the system of fortnightly payment of duty, which was introduced in the Budget for the year 2000-2001. The figures indicate that there have been considerable defaults in payments by large number of assessees. Indeed, legal provisions have been made to discourage defaults but it is necessary that executive measures should also be taken so that such defaults do not take place at all.
A number of discrepancies have since been observed by Drawback Directorate in the brand rate applications submitted by the exporters and verification reports carried out by field formations in regard to reimbursement of yarn duty against export of processed fabrics & garments.
Circular No. 570/7/2001-CX A question has been raised whether the process of drawing of wire from wire rod would amount to manufacture under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Though duties were being paid in various centres by the units undertaking the redrawing of wire from wire rods, doubts are being raised as CEGAT in a recent order No. 85/2000-B dated 13-1-2000 in the case of M/s.
The matter has been examined further and it has been decided that any ongoing open ended scheme proposing to launch additional plans, other than dividend and growth plans, which differ from the main scheme in terms of portfolio,
