Page 54 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th
P. 54

A146                        EXCISE LAW TIMES                    [ Vol. 372

                                     of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The Spokesperson for the Ministry
                                     did not respond to an e-mail query on the matter.
                                            The Second Official cited above said, “The Directorate [DGTR] has dou-
                                     bled its capacity to investigate import distortions that are causing injury to Indi-
                                     an industries. It can now probe at least 50 such cases in a year. ”
                                            India has taken a tough position against “aggressive and unfair” Chinese
                                     practices in the garb of trade which have undermined the Make in India policy
                                     aimed at encouraging domestic manufacturing and foreign investment, the offi-
                                     cial said.
                                            India-China bilateral trade is heavily tilted in favour of China. According
                                     to trade  figures released  by the General  Administration of Customs of China
                                     (GACC) in mid-January 2020, India’s trade deficit with China was $ 56.77 billion
                                     in 2019; bilateral trade amounted to about $92.68 billion last year, a 1.6% annual
                                     increase.
                                            Rahul Shukla, Executive Director of the Indirect Tax Practice at consult-
                                     ing firm PwC India, said protection of domestic industry was a right the Gov-
                                     ernment could exercise.  “The same can be done through increasing the tariff
                                     barriers or non-tariff barriers. However, these could have potential challenges as
                                     these measures cannot be country-specific (except for Anti-dumping Duty and
                                     Safeguard Duty), ” he said.
                                            Indian firms with units in Special Economic Zones (SEZ), particularly so-
                                     lar cell and modules manufacturers, said the Government may not extend safe-
                                     guard duties on solar cells and modules indefinitely. Saibaba Vutukuri, CEO of
                                     Vikram Solar Ltd., said there is  a possibility that the Government may levy  a
                                     Basic Customs Duty (BCD) after the Safeguard Duty expires on July 29. About
                                     63% cell manufacturing capacity and 43% module manufacturing facility is situ-
                                     ated in SEZs and  imposition of  BCD  would be counterproductive. Currently,
                                     15% Safeguard Duty (SGD) is applicable on import of cell and modules, but units
                                     located in SEZ are not liable to pay SGD if they import solar cells. However, the
                                     BCD will be levied on the value of solar cell whenever they clear the modules to
                                     domestic tariff area.
                                            “Therefore, if Government plans to levy BCD, it must take the necessary
                                     step to protect the investments already made by the manufacturing  facilities
                                     located in SEZs...,” he said.
                                              [Source : Hindustan Times, New Delhi, dated 11-5-2020]

                                     Lockdown effect : No gold seizure by Customs in April
                                            The Customs Department has seized just 900 kgs. of gold between Janu-
                                     ary and March, as against more than a tonne in the year-ago period. And not a
                                     single illegal consignment of the yellow metal has been reported in the first
                                     month of this fiscal year, said two people privy to the official data.
                                            The significant drop in the seizures in the last  quarter (Q4) of  2019-20
                                     (FY20), which typically contributes the most, had hit the total seizure to 3,800
                                     kgs. of gold in FY20, which is 7 per cent lower than the last year’s. In 2018-19, the
                                     Customs Officials had seized 4,058 kgs.  (a  little  over 4 tonnes), which was
                                     25 per cent more than what it seized preceding year.

                                                          EXCISE LAW TIMES      15th May 2020      54
   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59