独家
印度DRI问题引起注意展示给三星
还要注意问为什么一个点球的机构不应该对公司的高级管理人员实施。DRI还发布了一个显示导致注意普华永道Pvt Ltd(普华永道)和一个副主任,他质疑在调查。
该部门的收入智能(DRI)发布了一份显示引起注意印度三星电子(SIEL),问为什么机构不应该恢复1728 .47点卢比税款连同利息从韩国的子公司三星电子因涉嫌逃避关税。基于案例注册了DRI,发出通知孟买新港海关本周早些时候。
还要注意问为什么一个点球的机构不应该对公司的高级管理人员实施。DRI还发布了一个显示引起注意普华永道Pvt Ltd .)(普华永道)和一个副主任,他质疑在调查。
SIEL普华永道有30天的时间来回复通知
普华永道被SIEL进行分类的网络设备,在扫描仪。
这个问题属于所谓的误报进口远程无线头(RRH),一个网络设备,及其所谓SIEL误分类,以错误的效果过度基本关税豁免。
注意问为什么“商品打击,总访问Rs 6, 72821卢比,进口的账单下条目不应该承担没收下本法第111条(m)的海关行动,1962”,说一个人,引用通知,在匿名的情况下。该机构进一步问为什么“微分责任(的)1728 .47点卢比的条目的账单不应要求下,从他们28(4)节的规定海关行动,在利益适用率”。
还要注意问为什么美国不应该调整SIEL向支付300卢比沉积的微分的职责。
Gurgaon-based SIEL、普华永道和个人召集有30天内回复评选的权威。
等的查询邮件SIEL和普华永道没有引起任何反应直到截稿时间。
RRH是射频电路封闭在一个小的户外模块和最重要的子系统之一,4 g LTE通信系统。虽然DRI认为RRH是一个独立的设备,因此不承担责任豁免,该公司认为否则。
根据DRI,导入数据的分析表明,SIEL RRH自2018年1月在印度进口。它说,219的条目导入账单RRH通过SIEL 2018年1月至2021年7月,其中rrh自我评价的进口商和清除零速度基本关税。
2012年,SIEL合同依赖Jio提供4 g设备。然而,在引入商品及服务税(GST)政权在2017年,SIEL开始导入电信设备本身和在本地卖给Jio的依赖。
SIEL rrh进口的三种不同的规格,以提供增强的4 g覆盖和扩大细胞大小。三个rrh有不同的光谱特征。根据DRI, rrh售出了这单位是成品。没有进一步制造rrh公司完成的,这些都是直接卖给Jio后间隙的依赖。然而,在入口的账单审查下,宣布rrh千克的数量,根据机构。
随后,2021年7月,DRI进行搜索的前提与SIEL在古尔加翁和孟买。正在调查此案孟买DRI的单位。
调查得出结论,SIEL故意是不是RRH,根据机构。“SIEL RRH被分类在CTI“部分”85177090。因此,似乎SIEL蓄意是不是RRH,”这个人说,引用这个节目引起注意。“这也出现官员的间接税团队SIEL给规避回复或给荒谬的答案在语句。例如,先生Nikhil Aggarwal通用(间接税)在他的荒谬的声明/淘气地描述术语“传播”和“接待”。,发射/接收信号通过空气和不低于有线通信。他进一步表示,eNodeB DU,天线和RRH和自杜能独立工作被分类在CTI 85176290而RRH被分类作为eNodeB RRH不能自理。
引用该节目引起注意,人进一步说:“似乎有完整的混乱在顶层SIEL,到目前为止(as)海关合规感到担忧。在被问到谁是最终的权威在SIEL海关相关事宜,承认任何责任的官员们担心,特别是在有关进口商品分类”。"Sources also said that the expatriate Korean who was handling these imports of RRH for三星印度已被该公司为他的失误,从而表明三星韩国已经间接承认了印度子公司的失误。
说出理由通知说,尽管一个专用的间接税团队,看来海关分类问题是由物流团队。“此外,关于清关的问题都是由网络部门的销售团队尽管物流团队处理通关。所谓不同的分类采用不同的国家还讨论了关于FTA(自由贸易协定)的资格标准,”这个人说,引用了通知。
还要注意问为什么一个点球的机构不应该对公司的高级管理人员实施。DRI还发布了一个显示引起注意普华永道Pvt Ltd .)(普华永道)和一个副主任,他质疑在调查。
SIEL普华永道有30天的时间来回复通知
普华永道被SIEL进行分类的网络设备,在扫描仪。
注意问为什么“商品打击,总访问Rs 6, 72821卢比,进口的账单下条目不应该承担没收下本法第111条(m)的海关行动,1962”,说一个人,引用通知,在匿名的情况下。该机构进一步问为什么“微分责任(的)1728 .47点卢比的条目的账单不应要求下,从他们28(4)节的规定海关行动,在利益适用率”。
还要注意问为什么美国不应该调整SIEL向支付300卢比沉积的微分的职责。
Gurgaon-based SIEL、普华永道和个人召集有30天内回复评选的权威。
等的查询邮件SIEL和普华永道没有引起任何反应直到截稿时间。
RRH是射频电路封闭在一个小的户外模块和最重要的子系统之一,4 g LTE通信系统。虽然DRI认为RRH是一个独立的设备,因此不承担责任豁免,该公司认为否则。
2012年,SIEL合同依赖Jio提供4 g设备。然而,在引入商品及服务税(GST)政权在2017年,SIEL开始导入电信设备本身和在本地卖给Jio的依赖。
SIEL rrh进口的三种不同的规格,以提供增强的4 g覆盖和扩大细胞大小。三个rrh有不同的光谱特征。根据DRI, rrh售出了这单位是成品。没有进一步制造rrh公司完成的,这些都是直接卖给Jio后间隙的依赖。然而,在入口的账单审查下,宣布rrh千克的数量,根据机构。
随后,2021年7月,DRI进行搜索的前提与SIEL在古尔加翁和孟买。正在调查此案孟买DRI的单位。
调查得出结论,SIEL故意是不是RRH,根据机构。“SIEL RRH被分类在CTI“部分”85177090。因此,似乎SIEL蓄意是不是RRH,”这个人说,引用这个节目引起注意。“这也出现官员的间接税团队SIEL给规避回复或给荒谬的答案在语句。例如,先生Nikhil Aggarwal通用(间接税)在他的荒谬的声明/淘气地描述术语“传播”和“接待”。,发射/接收信号通过空气和不低于有线通信。他进一步表示,eNodeB DU,天线和RRH和自杜能独立工作被分类在CTI 85176290而RRH被分类作为eNodeB RRH不能自理。
点可能会寻求法律部门意见给实体频谱
官员意识到细节说点会问如果频谱可以管理或通过拍卖。虽然内阁已经批准直接分配企业2022年6月,它没有清楚周围的具体方法。“我们将寻求清晰的法律部门。
引用该节目引起注意,人进一步说:“似乎有完整的混乱在顶层SIEL,到目前为止(as)海关合规感到担忧。在被问到谁是最终的权威在SIEL海关相关事宜,承认任何责任的官员们担心,特别是在有关进口商品分类”。"Sources also said that the expatriate Korean who was handling these imports of RRH for三星印度已被该公司为他的失误,从而表明三星韩国已经间接承认了印度子公司的失误。
说出理由通知说,尽管一个专用的间接税团队,看来海关分类问题是由物流团队。“此外,关于清关的问题都是由网络部门的销售团队尽管物流团队处理通关。所谓不同的分类采用不同的国家还讨论了关于FTA(自由贸易协定)的资格标准,”这个人说,引用了通知。
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI<\/a>) has issued a show cause notice to Samsung India Electronics<\/a> (SIEL<\/a>), asking why the agency should not recover Rs 1,728.47 crore as duty along with interest from the subsidiary of South Korea's Samsung Electronics<\/a> for alleged customs duty evasion. Based on a case registered by DRI, the notice was issued by Nhava Sheva Customs earlier this week.
The agency in the notice also asked why a penalty should not be imposed against the senior management of the company. The DRI also issued a show cause notice to PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt Ltd<\/a> (PwC) and an associate director, who was questioned during the probe.
![\"DRI](\"https:\/\/st.etb2bimg.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
SIEL<\/a>, PwC have 30 days to reply to notice<\/strong>
PwC was engaged by SIEL for classification of the network equipment, which is under scanner.
The agency in the notice also asked why a penalty should not be imposed against the senior management of the company. The DRI also issued a show cause notice to PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt Ltd<\/a> (PwC) and an associate director, who was questioned during the probe.
SIEL<\/a>, PwC have 30 days to reply to notice<\/strong>
PwC was engaged by SIEL for classification of the network equipment, which is under scanner.
<\/div><\/div>The issue pertains to alleged misdeclaration in importing remote radio head (RRH<\/a>), a networking device, and its alleged misclassification by SIEL, in order to wrongly avail undue exemption of basic customs duty.
The notice asked why \"the impugned goods, having total accessible value of Rs 6,72,821 crore, imported under the bills of entry should not be held liable for confiscation under the provisions of section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962\", said a person, quoting the notice, on condition of anonymity. The agency further asked why the \"differential duty (of) Rs 1,728.47 crore in respect of the bills of entry should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, along with interest at the applicable rate\".
The notice also asked why the department should not adjust Rs 300 crore deposited by SIEL towards payment of differential duty.
Gurgaon-based SIEL, PwC and the individuals summoned have a 30-day period to reply to the adjudicating authority.
ET's queries emailed to SIEL and PwC did not elicit any response till press time.
RRH is a radio-frequency circuitry enclosed in a small outdoor module and one of the most important subsystems of 4G LTE telecommunication system. While the DRI has argued that RRH is an independent equipment and hence not liable for exemption, the firm has argued otherwise.
The notice asked why \"the impugned goods, having total accessible value of Rs 6,72,821 crore, imported under the bills of entry should not be held liable for confiscation under the provisions of section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962\", said a person, quoting the notice, on condition of anonymity. The agency further asked why the \"differential duty (of) Rs 1,728.47 crore in respect of the bills of entry should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, along with interest at the applicable rate\".
The notice also asked why the department should not adjust Rs 300 crore deposited by SIEL towards payment of differential duty.
Gurgaon-based SIEL, PwC and the individuals summoned have a 30-day period to reply to the adjudicating authority.
ET's queries emailed to SIEL and PwC did not elicit any response till press time.
RRH is a radio-frequency circuitry enclosed in a small outdoor module and one of the most important subsystems of 4G LTE telecommunication system. While the DRI has argued that RRH is an independent equipment and hence not liable for exemption, the firm has argued otherwise.
<\/div><\/div>According to the DRI, an analysis of the import data indicated that SIEL imported RRH in India since January 2018. It said that 219 bills of entry for import of the RRH were cleared by SIEL between January 2018 and July 2021, wherein the RRHs<\/a> were self-assessed by the importer and cleared at nil rate of basic customs duty.
In 2012, SIEL got a contract from Reliance<\/a> Jio for supplying 4G equipment. However, after the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) regime in 2017, SIEL started to import the telecom equipment<\/a> itself and sell it locally to Reliance Jio.
SIEL was importing RRHs of three different specifications so as to provide enhanced 4G coverage and to expand the cell size. The three RRHs have different spectrum characteristics. According to the DRI, RRHs were sold in units as these were finished products. There was no further manufacturing done by the company on the RRHs and these were directly sold to Reliance Jio after clearance. However, in the bills of entry under scrutiny, the quantity of RRHs was declared in kilograms, according to the agency.
Subsequently, in July 2021, the DRI conducted searches on premises linked to SIEL in Gurgaon and Mumbai. The case is being probed by the Mumbai unit of the DRI.
The probe concluded that SIEL had deliberately misclassified the RRH, according to the agency. \"RRH was being classified by SIEL under 'parts' in CTI 85177090. Therefore, it appeared that SIEL had deliberately misclassified the RRH,\" said the person, quoting the show cause notice. \"It also appears that officials of the indirect tax team of SIEL were giving evasive replies or giving absurd answers during their statements. For example, Shri Nikhil Aggarwal, GM (indirect taxation) during his statement absurdly\/mischievously described the terms 'transmission' and 'reception' i.e., transmitting\/receiving signals through air only and not under wired communication. He had further stated that eNodeB consisted of DU, antenna and RRH and since DU could work independently it was being classified under CTI 85176290 whereas RRH was being classified as part of eNodeB as RRH could not function independently.\"
In 2012, SIEL got a contract from Reliance<\/a> Jio for supplying 4G equipment. However, after the introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) regime in 2017, SIEL started to import the telecom equipment<\/a> itself and sell it locally to Reliance Jio.
SIEL was importing RRHs of three different specifications so as to provide enhanced 4G coverage and to expand the cell size. The three RRHs have different spectrum characteristics. According to the DRI, RRHs were sold in units as these were finished products. There was no further manufacturing done by the company on the RRHs and these were directly sold to Reliance Jio after clearance. However, in the bills of entry under scrutiny, the quantity of RRHs was declared in kilograms, according to the agency.
Subsequently, in July 2021, the DRI conducted searches on premises linked to SIEL in Gurgaon and Mumbai. The case is being probed by the Mumbai unit of the DRI.
The probe concluded that SIEL had deliberately misclassified the RRH, according to the agency. \"RRH was being classified by SIEL under 'parts' in CTI 85177090. Therefore, it appeared that SIEL had deliberately misclassified the RRH,\" said the person, quoting the show cause notice. \"It also appears that officials of the indirect tax team of SIEL were giving evasive replies or giving absurd answers during their statements. For example, Shri Nikhil Aggarwal, GM (indirect taxation) during his statement absurdly\/mischievously described the terms 'transmission' and 'reception' i.e., transmitting\/receiving signals through air only and not under wired communication. He had further stated that eNodeB consisted of DU, antenna and RRH and since DU could work independently it was being classified under CTI 85176290 whereas RRH was being classified as part of eNodeB as RRH could not function independently.\"