Minutes of the DEPB Committee Meeting held on 01/07/ 2005

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Minutes of the DEPB Committee Meeting held on 01/07/ 2005"

Bernadette Malone
5 years ago
Views:

1 Minutes of the DEPB Committee Meeting held on 01/07/ 2005 The DEPB Committee meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Shri Vipin Saxena, Export Commissioner. The following officers were present:- S.No Name of the representatives & their Designation Deptt. 1. Shri A.C.R. Das, Addl.IA Min. of Steel 2. Shri R.K. Talajia, OSD(DBK) Deptt of Revenue 3. Shri Jagmohan Singh, Asstt.Dir. Deptt of Revenue 4. Shri S.K. Jain, DO DGFT 5. Shri Rajat Srivastava, Executive DGFT 6. Shri S.B.S. Reddy, Jt.DGFT DGFT 7. Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Dy.DGFT DGFT 8. Shri V.B. Saxena, Dy.DGFT DGFT 9. Ms. S.K. Ram, Dy.DGFT DGFT 10. Shri Veerendra Kumar, FTDO DGFT 11. Shri Girish Chandra, FTDO DGFT 12. Shri S.K. Verma, FTDO DGFT 13. Shri M.K.Parimoo, Dy.DGFT DGFT At t he out set, individual Cases in t he agenda were t aken up f or discussion and decision taken thereof is detailed below:- DES- I Division Case No.81 M/s Bharat Forge Ltd., Pune F.No.01/80/162/605/AM05/DES-I The Commit t ee consider ed t he case as per det ails given in t he Agenda. Per usal of t he GRC meet ing minut es r eveal t hat GRC had passed or der s

2 2 based upon the decision of Deptt of Revenue. The Committee therefore felt t hat t he or der of GRC should be accept ed. However, t he r epr esent at ive f r om Dept t of Revenue ver y st r ongly obj ect ed t o any r et r ospect ive applicat ion of r evised DEPB r at es and sought t hat t hey would like t o r epr esent t he case again t o GRC on t his issue and r equest ed f or a short deferment. I n view of t he st r ong obj ect ion of DOR and as r equest ed by t hem, t he Committee decided that DOR be given a f or t night s t ime t o obt ain dir ect ions of GRC in the matter. The case therefore stands deferred. Case No.17 M/s Bharat Engineering Exposition, Jalandhar F.No.01/80/162/1564/AM05/DES-I The Committee considered the case as per details given in the Agenda. The Commit t ee agr eeing wit h t he r ecommendat ion of ALC conf ir med t hat t he expor t pr oduct was not a clamp and t her ef or e not cover ed f or DEPB benef it s under ent r y at Sl.No.204 of DEPB schedule f or Engineer ing Products. Case No.18 M/s Kirloskar Copeland Ltd, PUne F.No.01/80/162/192/AM06/DES-I Committee agr eed wit h t he decision t aken by t he ALC and decided t hat a suitable clarification may be issued as per the said decision of ALC. Case No.19 M/s B. Mitra & Co., Kolkata F.No.01/80/162/1432/AM05/DES-I Commit t ee obser ved t hat in t his par t icular case adj udicat ion pr oceedings have been complet ed, t he Commit t ee does not have t he power s t o hear an appeal against t he adj udicat ion or der and t her ef or e has no r ole in t he instant case at this stage.

3 3 Case No.20 M/s Amiya Commerce & Construction Co Pvt Ltd, Kolkata F.No.01/80/162/608/AM05/DES-I Commit t ee agr eeing wit h t he views of ALC t hat t he pr oduct in quest ion cannot be consider ed as assembly of var ious it ems as in par a 11 of Gener al Instructions of DEPB Schedule would not be covered for DEPB benefits even under Sl.No.513 of the DEPB Schedule for Engineering Products. Case No.21 M/s Haldex India Ltd., Nashik F.No.01/80/162/1697/AM05/DES-I Commit t ee agr eeing wit h t he views t aken by t he ALC conf ir med t hat Slack Adj ust er Assembly as expor t ed in t he inst ant case cannot be consider ed f or DEPB benefits under Sl.No.294 of DEPB Schedule for Engineering Products. Case No.22 M/s Metal India, Moradabad F.No.01/80/162/141/AM06/DES-I Commit t ee was in agr eement wit h t he decision t aken by t he ALC and reaffirmed that (i) (ii) (iii) DEPB cr edit under Sl.No.353 & 354 would be admissible on t he it em even if t he weight of t he mat er ial, t he handle / lid may have been made of, exceeds the 5% of total weight. The value cap will be applicable to the weight of the whole items. I f t he weight of ext r aneous mat er ial in any it em under any Sl.No. exceeds 5% of t ot al weight, t he DEPB cr edit would be admissible as per t he pr ovisions f or composit e pr oduct s specif ied at Gener al Instruction No.11 of DEPB rates.

4 4 Case No.3 Audit Objections raised by Accountant General (Audit), Andhra Pradesh F.No.01/86/ 40/ 55/AM01/DES-I II/DES-I The Commit t ee consider ed t he case as per det ails given in t he Agenda. This case was discussed ear lier in t he DEPB Commit t ee held on and t he DEPB Commit t ee had decided t o r egular ize t he case subj ect t o t he concur r ence of Dept t of Revenue. Dept t of Revenue however has suggest ed t hat r ecover ies may be made in t he inst ant case. The Commit t ee after deliber at ion on t he issue was of t he view t hat wr ong f ixat ion of DEPB r at e was an omission on t he par t of t he Commit t ee and t her ef or e t he expor t er who claimed t he benef it based upon t he r at e f ixed by t he DEPB Commit t ee cannot be penalized. The Commit t ee decided t hat t he Dept t of Revenue should r econsider t heir views on t he issue and agr ee t o r egular ize excess payment as suggested by the DEPB Committee in the last meeting. DES- II DIVISION Case No.D-1 M/s Paramount Metal Factory F.No.01/81/162/88/AM06/DES-II The Commit t ee consider ed t he case as per det ails given in t he Agenda. This case had come up bef or e t he Commit t ee on when Dept t of Revenue had sought def er ment t o enable t hem t o examine t he case. Subsequent ly, vide t heir communicat ion dat ed , t he Dept t of Revenue has st at ed t hat Cone Oil Lamp does not f all under t he HSN which classif ies Ot her House-hold ar t icles. Dur ing deliber at ions in t he meet ing, ot her Member s of t he Commit t ee f elt ot her wise and were of t he opinion t hat t he HSN quoted by the DOR is not relevant as DEPB Schedule is not aligned with HSN. The ar gument put f or t h by t he Commissioner of Cust oms is t hat Oil Lamp is f ixed on soil in t he gar den alone is not cor r ect. I t can be f ixed any wher e. All t he member s f elt t hat f or all pr act ical pur pose t he it em in quest ion is cover ed by Ot her House-hold ar t icles and is ent it led f or DEPB benef it s under Sl.No.353 of t he DEPB schedule f or Engineer ing I t ems. However, in view of t he wr it t en comment s of DOR giving views cont r ar y t o t he views of ot her member s, it was decided t o r ef er t he case back t o DOR and DOR may t ake all t he r elevant f act s int o consider at ion including cor r esponding SI ON et c. and r econsider t heir view point. The case st ands deferred.

5 5 Case No.D-2 Office of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata (M/s Tijiya Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) F.No.01/81/162/150/AM06/DES-II Commit t ee agr eeing wit h t he views expr essed by t he ALC was of t he view t hat L-shaped bolt s wit h nut s is mor e like an anchor bolt and not a normal bolt and t her ef or e is classif iable under Sl.No.457 of t he DEPB schedule f or Engineering Products. Case No.D-3 Ref. From EEPC, New Delhi (M/s Polar Industries Ltd) F.No.01/81/162/1540/AM05/DES-II Commit t ee was inf or med t hat similar r equest s have been r eceived f r om ot her f ir ms/ manuf act ur er s and dat a f or bot h impor t and expor t is being collect ed t hr ough EEPC. This case was t her ef or e wit hdr awn and t o be consider ed by t he ALC alongwit h ot her similar cases and a consolidat ed r ecommendat ion t o be made bef or e t he case is br ought bef or e t he DEPB Committee again. DES- III Division Case No.1 M/s Matrix Laboratories Ltd, Hyderabad F.No.01/82/162/6376/AM05/DES-III case had come up bef or e t he Commit t ee on wher e t he Commit t ee had wor ked out t he DEPB r at e of 4%. However, Dept t of Revenue had sought one weeks t ime t o r at if y t he decision t aken in t he DEPB Commit t ee. The representative from DOR present in the meeting stated that the case is still being examined by that authority therefore they are not in a position to give their comments. When being asked, as against 7 days time given earlier, why t hat aut hor it y was unable t o t ake a decision on t he issue, t he DOR representative requested for one last opportunity and requested that 7 days t ime be allowed t o t hem f or t aking a view on t he r ecommendat ion of t he DEPB Commit t ee. The r equest of DOR was acceded t o and t he case st ands deferred.

6 6 Case No.2 M/s Lodha Offset Limited F.No.01/82/162/3500/AM05/DES-III case was wit hdr awn f or det ailed examinat ion by ALC bef or e t he same is brought back to DEPB Committee. DES- I V Division Case No.D-4 M/s Paushak Ltd., Vadodara F.No.01/82/162/1089/AM04/DES-IV case had come up bef or e t he Commit t ee on wher e t he Commit t ee had wor ked out t he DEPB r at e of 4%. However, Dept t of Revenue had sought one weeks t ime t o r at if y t he decision t aken in t he DEPB Commit t ee. The representative from DOR present in the meeting stated that the case is still being examined by that authority therefore they are not in a position to give their comments. When being asked, as against 7 days time given earlier, why t hat aut hor it y was unable t o t ake a decision on t he issue, t he DOR representative requested for one last opportunity and requested that 7 days t ime be allowed t o t hem f or t aking a view on t he r ecommendat ion of t he DEPB Commit t ee. The r equest of DOR was acceded t o and t he case st ands deferred. Case No.D-5 M/s The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd F.No.01/83/44/67/AM04/DES-IV r epr esent at ive f r om Dept t of Revenue pr esent in t he meet ing r equest ed t hat t hey may be given an oppor t unit y t o examine t he issue bef or e t he case is t aken up in t he DEPB Commit t ee f or a decision. The r equest of DOR was acceded to and the case stands deferred.

7 7 DES- V Division Case No.3 Ref. From Customs House, Kolkata F.No.01/84/162/1337/AM05/DES-V Commit t ee agr eeing wit h t he r ecommendat ion of t he ALC conf ir med t hat t he it em in quest ion is cover ed f or benef it s under DEPB scheme under Sl.No.43 (B) of DEPB schedule for Textile items. Case No.1 No.01/06 M/s Mirza Tanners, Kanpur F.No.01/84/162/1236/AM05/DES-V Commit t ee agr eeing wit h t he r ecommendat ion of ALC conf ir med t hat Leat her Shoes expor t ed in t he inst ant case ar e cover ed f or DEPB benef it s under Sl.No.9 of t he DEPB schedule f or Leat her Pr oduct s ir r espect ive of the fact that the same have resin soles. Case No.2 No.01/06 Ref from Jt.DGFT, Kanpur F.No.01/84/162/1037/AM05/DES-V Committee after deliberations on the issue confirmed that (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Hor se r ugs made of cot t on ar e classif iable under Sl.No.68 of the DEPB schedule for Textile items. Hor se Hood Set may be t r eat ed as a composit e pr oduct of Polyest er made-ups (shell) [eligible t o be consider ed f or gr ant of DEPB cr edit vide Sl.No.43 B of pr oduct code 89 of DEPB schedule]. The buckles/ st r aps weighing less t han 5% of t he t ot al weight of expor t pr oduct may be ignor ed. The claim should be f iled by t he f ir m under t he Gener al I nst r uct ion No.11 for DEPB rates in the DEPB schedule. Hor se boot r ip st op quilt ed cover f or hor se legs is not eligible for DEPB credit as there is no DEPB rate for foam. P.P. lead is also not eligible for DEPB credit. Cot t on Oily coat is basically a coat and not a j acket and ther ef or e not ent it led f or DEPB benef it s under DEPB schedule for Textile items as there is no DEPB entry for Coats.

8 8 DES- VI Division Case No.1 Sea Food Expor t er s Associat ion of I ndia F.No.01/85/162/307/AM04/DES-VI case had come up bef or e t he Commit t ee on when Dept t of Revenue had sought def er ment of t he case t o enable t hem t o examine t he issue. Dept t of Revenue in t heir wr it t en communicat ion have opposed upwar d r evision of DEPB r at es f r om 5% t o 6% f or t he per iod f r om t o I t has been obser ved by t hat aut hor it y t hat t he DEPB r at e of 5% as r ecommended by t he DEPB Commit t ee having not if ied on wer e made effective f r om which means t hat r et r ospect ive benefits have alr eady been allowed. They have f ur t her st at ed t hat f ur t her r evision wit h r et r ospect ive benef it s would not st and legal scr ut iny and may open flood gates of all sorts of requests/representation of this nature. I n view of t his wr it t en communicat ion f r om Dept t of Revenue, t he mat t er need not be pursued further. Case No.2 M/s Northern Fats & Oils Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh F.No.01/85/162/512/AM05/DES-VI The Commit t ee consider ed t he case as per det ails given in t he Agenda. I t was obser ved t hat no dat a was available t o enable t he Commit t ee t o f ix t he r at es. I t was f ur t her seen t hat ALC had not given any r ecommendat ion on t he issue. I t was t her ef or e, decided t o r ef er t he case back t o ALC. They may examine t he issue and make a suit able pr oposal f or consider at ion by t he DEPB Committee supported by requisite data.

9 9 Case No.3 M/s All India Glass Beads Manufacturers, Mumbai F.No.01/85/83/162/707/AM01/DES-VI case had come up bef or e t he Commit t ee on However, Dept t of Revenue had sought one weeks t ime t o examine t he issue. The representative from DOR present in the meeting stated that the case is still being examined by that authority therefore they are not in a position to give t heir comment s. When being asked as against 7 days t ime given ear lier why t hat aut hor it y was unable t o t ake a decision on t he issue, t he DOR representative requested for one last opportunity and requested that 7 days t ime be allowed t o t hem f or t aking a view on t he issue under consider at ion. The request of DOR was acceded to and the case stands deferred. The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair. ********

Minutes of the DEPB Committee Meeting held on 24/03/ 2005

Minutes of the DEPB Committee Meeting held on 24/03/ 2005 The Committee meet ing was held under t he Chair manship of Shr i Vipin Saxena, Export Commissioner. The following officers were present:- S.No