| Login |
Not a member yet? Click here to register.
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
|
|
| Whether the SIIB section maintains the daily duty register book or No such register was maintained. |
30 July, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001718/8773 Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Chamber NO. 250,Western Wing,Tis Hazari Court,Delhi-54. Respondent :Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey Public Information Officer &Asst. Commissioner of Customs,Government of N.C.T. of Delhi Inland Container Depot,Tughlakabad Commissionerate, Delhi-20. X x x
4. The number of persons who are not on the payroll of the Customs Shri Joginder Singh and Shri department but are currently deployed at the refund section and the Devender Singh were not working SIIB section. Whether persons named Shri Joginder Singh and Shri in the SIIB and Refund sections Devender Singh have been working in the SIIB and Refund sections respectively. respectively. If yes, then specify under what capacity/designation they have been working there and what kind of jobs they have been entrusted with and under whose orders they have been deployed in the said department.
5. Whether the SIIB section maintains the daily duty register book or No such register was maintained. not .If yes, then the details contained therein along with the name of the person who allocates the duty on a daily basis to the subordinate personnel. X x x The Appeal is allowed. Full Text
|
|
| Syndicate Bank to provide to the Appellant a photocopy of the enquiry report in respect of his complaint / If any other action had been taken on the complaint, the copies of the relevant papers/record |
Mr.Ramniwas vs Syndicate Bank on 29 July, 2010
Central Information Commission File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001707 dated 29042009 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Dated: 29 July 2010
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri G.K. Mehra, ACPIO was present. In this case, the Appellant had requested the CPIO on 29 April 2009 for the copy of the enquiry report into his complaint dated 27 January 2009. . . . We heard this case through videoconferencing . . .
4. After carefully considering the RTI application and the submissions made by the Respondents, we would like to direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order a photocopy of the enquiry report in respect of his complaint. If any other action had been taken on the complaint, the copies of the relevant papers/records should also be made available to the Appellant. Full Text
|
|
| Pakistan introduces reformed GST on goods and services from the 1st October, 2010 |
The sources also said that the federal and provincial authorities had agreed to the broad contours of the reformed GST on goods and services to be introduced on October 1.
Dawn.com report Full Text
|
|
| Yogesh Shah.Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise in Gujarat, recipient of the highest amount in rewards ever in the history of the Customs and Excise Departments in India |
One of Shah’s biggest catches was 300 capsules of heroin (which amounted to about 2 kgs) worth about Rs 1,200 crore. A Nigerian national had swallowed the heroin and was passing through the Mumbai Sahar Airport when Shah apprehended him. The United States Drug Enforcement Agency had commended him for the catch.
Shah has also been responsible for the seizure of 88 gold biscuits valued at Rs 52 lakh hidden in the sandals of a German national, Rs 50 lakh in foreign currency in the false bottom of a Calicut resident’s handbag, and diamonds worth Rs 5 crore from the rectum of a Sri Lankan national, all during his tenures at the Sardar Vallabhbhai International Airport in Ahmedabad and the Mumbai Sahar Airport. Full Text of News
|
|
| Import of ‘Worn Clothing’ –- to impose penalty keeping in view the ‘margin of profit’ and only after proper fumigation |
|
Import of ‘worn clothing and other worn articles’ is restricted under ITC(HS) vide DGFT Notification No.7/2004-09 with effect from 27.10.2004. ... 2. In this regard, the Committee on Petitions (Fourteenth Lok Sabha) has made a recommendation that the increasing tendency of import of such worn clothing needs to be curbed. The Board has, accordingly, decided to reiterate that being a restricted item under ITC (HS), the import of ‘worn clothing’ should be adjudicated and fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty imposed keeping in view the ‘margin of profit’ on such unauthorized import and also the fact that such consignments should not get cleared by paying only nominal fine and penalty in future. ... 3 As recommended by the Committee on Petitions, the Board has also considered the possible health hazard associated with such imports and hence, decided that consignment of ‘used / worn clothing’ will be given clearance by the Customs authorities only after proper fumigation of the consignment. The cost of fumigation will have to be borne by the concerned importers.
Circular No.22 / 2010-Customs Dated: 26th July, 2010.
|
|
| Lexus Car Import case: Special Court Convicts [Sasikala] Natrajan for Two Years RI |
A Special Court in Chennai on Monday convicted M Natarajan, husband of Ms Sasikala, who is close aide of former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa for two years Rigorous Imprisonment(RI) in a Lexus car import case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI). ... Delivering the judgment, CBI court special judge Raveendran convicted all the four accused on 18 counts and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on each count. While Yogesh Balakrishnan facilitated the shipment of the car to India, Ms Sucharita was convicted for issuing false certificate. Full Text.
Full background of the case available at: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1210211/ Related case: Link
|
|
| Project Import assessment under 98.01 benefit is also not available to a single or composite machine |
To the kind attention of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.
CESTAT Stay Order No. 605/2009, dated 2-7-2009 in Application No. C/S/70/2009 in Appeal No. C/134/2009 reported in 2009 (247) E.L.T. 793 (Tri. - Chennai) says
2. Prima facie there is nothing in Para 3 of the PIR to deny the project import benefit to a single machine. Further, we find that industrial plant comprises of one or more numbers of units and the imported machinery is for, ‘substantial expansion of the unit of the existing industrial plant’ of the applicant irrespective of the fact that it is a single machine or a composite machine and the imported machinery is intended for substantial expansion of existing unit of an existing industrial plant of the appellants.
But the PIR Project Import Regulations, 1986 reads ...
3. The different projects to which heading 98.01 applies are; irrigation project . . . However this benefit is not available to hotels, hospitals, photographic studios, photographic film processing laboratories, photocopying studios, laundries, garages and workshops. This benefit is also not available to a single or composite machine.
We bring the above facts to your kind notice please.
|
|
| A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape ... when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him |
A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape ... when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him
A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. ... 13. A somewhat similar question was examined by this Court in connection with Section 167 and 178-A of the Sea Customs Act in Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. v. D. Bhoormull AIR 1974 SC 859 Link to full text
|
|
| Grievance to Department of Revenue: SAD Refunds - Amendment to s.28 C of Customs Act, 1962 |
|
Please Click Here
|
|
|
