gayatri projects limited - Edelweiss

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITEDGatiman Transport vs. Gayatri Starchkem Limited (OS No. 53/2004) at Civil Court, Pune.The Defendant Company engaged the services of Plaintiff for transporting its product to various places. However, the Plaintiffalleged that the Defendant failed to pay the transportation charges. Posted for written statement. Amount involved is Rs. 1.49lakhs.Customs CaseDirector Revenue Intelligence vs. Gayatri Starchkem Limited (File No. 5(27)/ECA/2003/04/HYD) at JDGFT, Hyderabad.The company imported capital goods like autoclave, electrolyser, etc., under EPCG license under EXIM Policy. As per thepolicy the company was under obligation to export 4 times the value of the capital goods imported i.e Rs.433.52 lakhs x 4times = Rs.1734.09 lakhs (converted into 54.96 lakhs US $) within 5 years from the date of import. The company submittedthat the non-fulfillment of export obligation is not willful but only due to low international market conditions. The companyfurther requested for inclusion of starch and other by-products as additional export items. The department has not agreed forthis. Action contemplated under sections 11 and 14 of Foreign Trade (P & R) Act, 1992. Requested to keep the matter inabeyance pending adjudication of the customs matter.Outstanding Cases Filed By Gayatri Starchkem LimitedCustom CaseGayatri Starchkem Limited vs. Director Revenue Intelligence (F.No. CAU/CRI (Hyd)/25/2000) at Commissioner ofCustoms (Exports), ChennaiThe Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai demanded for recovery of Customs Duty for non-fulfillment of export obligationunder EPCG scheme.The Chief Commissioner of Customs did not consider the submissions of the company and denied thebenefit of exemption under notification No. 160/92, dated: 20.04.1992, demanding the differential duty of Rs.148.43 andinterest 24% per annum on the above duty and penalty of Rs.7.5 lakhs and redemption fine of Rs.30.00 lakhs U/S 135 of theCustoms Act. In the Appeal to Customs Tribunal the following points were raised:i) The export obligations under EPCG scheme could not be performed due to the reasons beyond the control of thecompany.ii) The proceedings are barred by limitation.iii) The technical know-how contract and the contract for supply of Auto-Clave Equipment are two independenttransactions.iv) As per revised classification proposed the benefit under project import category are available for “Electrolyser”equipment.v) Company is a BIFR company and prayed for financial hardship. The tribunal remanded the matter to commissionerof customer for Denovo adjudication who heard the matter. The Hon’ble Commissioner heard the arguments andreserved the order.Outstanding Cases Against Gayatri Sugars LimitedCivil CaseGovt. of India and South Indian Sugar Mills Association vs. Gayatri sugars limited at Honorable High Court of AndhraPradesh, HyderabadGovernment of India has announced additional SMP of Rs 50 for the sugar season 2002-03 and the same was contested bythe sugar mills association. Total impact has demanded by Govt. of A P through Asst. Cane Commissioner amounting to Rs334.50 Lakhs. The Matter is still pending with the court, however the company has agreed to pay Rs 50 Additional caneprice to the cane growers for the year 2002-03 in an oral understanding. Any differential further payment if any will beconsidered by the company only after settlement of the case in the court.158