Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (5) of section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995.
Notification No. 94/2011-Customs, Dated the 3rd October, 2011 Seeks to amend notification No. 137/2008-Customs, dated the 26th December, 2008, relating to imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Caustic Soda, originating in, or exported from, Korea RP
The current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claims shall be intimated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due t0 unavoidable circumstances. The insurers’ decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policyholders losing confidence in the insurance industry, giving rise to excessive litigation.
As you are aware, the interest on loans and advances granted by the Reserve Bank to State Co-operative Banks under Section 17 (4) (a) of the RBI Act, 1934 for the purpose of general banking business such as clearing adjustments, liquidity etc. is provided at Bank Rate in terms of our circular RPCD No. NB. BC.93/03.03.02/98-99 dated April 20, 1999.
Notification No. 53/2011 – Income Tax It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment Year 2010-11 and onwards in the category of ‘Other Institution’, partly
Create awareness among the branch officials about the Scheme so as to enable them to guide the target customers, many of who may be illiterate. The branch officials should be able to explain the features of the Scheme and guide them in filling up the remittance form.
Please refer to the Government of India Notification No. 14/2010/F.No. 6/2/2007-ES dated December 16, 2010 which recognises the letter issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) containing details of name, address and Aadhaar number, as an officially valid document as contained in Rule 2(1)(d) of the PML Rules, 2005.
In relaxation of above prohibition, certain exemptions have been granted through various notifications issued from time to time namely (a) export of Castor Oil (b) export of coconut oil from Cochin Port (c) Deemed export of edible oils(as input raw material) from DTA to 100% EOUs for production of non-edible goods to be exported (d) export of oil produced out of minor forest produce even if edible.
In the light of developments in the domestic and international financial markets, Reserve Bank had reviewed the extant guidelines on securitisation of standard assets and placed the draft guidelines on minimum lock-in period/Minimum Holding Period (MHP) and Minimum Retention Requirements (MRR) for Indian banks on its website on April 19, 2010 for feedback from the market participants. The draft guidelines were accompanied by a discussion paper titled ‘Emerging Trends in Regulation and Supervision of Securitisation Activities of Banks’. The discussion paper mentioned inter alia that Reserve Bank would also consider laying down specific regulatory norms for transactions involving transfer of loans through direct assignment between banks as also between banks and other entities.
Instances of fraud have been brought to the notice of the RBI wherein Bank Guarantees (BGs) purportedly issued by a couple of bank branches in favour of different entities were presented for confirmation by other commercial banks/individuals representing some beneficiary firms. The BGs were submitted along with Confirmation Advice /Advice of Acceptance. One of the beneficiaries was the reporting banks customer. The remaining beneficiaries and applicants were neither the customers of the bank nor were they known to the bank branch officials.
