Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Osaka Alloys And Steels Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Jammu & Kashmir on 13 March, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 29/01/2015. DATE OF DECISION : 13/03/2015. Excise Appeal No. 54271 of 2014 and 2884 of 2012 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 06/CE/SRC/ Commissioner/J&K/13-14 dated 01/04/2014 passed by The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Jammu.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Osaka Alloys and Steels Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE & ST, Jammu & Kashmir Respondent
Appearance S/Shri Bipin Garg and Jatin Singhal, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri R.K. Grover, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 50603-50604/2015 Dated : 13/03/2015 Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The facts leading to filing of these appeals are, in brief, as under.
1.1 The appellant having their manufacturing unit in IGC, Phase II, Samba, Jammu & Kashmir, manufacture Lead Ingots chargeable to Central Excise Duty under Chapter 78 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They commenced commercial production on 27/3/12. Notification No. 56/02-CE dated 14/11/02 issued under Section 5A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Section 3 (3) of Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance Act) 1957, and Section 3 (3) of Additional Duty of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 exempts the goods other than those specified in Annexure I of the Notification, from the duty of excise chargeable under Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and additional duty of excise chargeable under Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as AED (GSI)] and under Additional Duty of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 [hereinafter referred to as AED (T&TA)], to the extent these duties have been paid through PLA after utilising the Cenvat credit available at the end of the month for payment of duty to the extent possible. This exemption notification was, however, applicable to the eligible goods manufactured and cleared from the units located in the areas specified in Annexure II of the exemption Notification. This notification was applicable to the new industrial units which commenced commercial production on or after 14th June, 2002 and also to the industrial units existing before 14th June, 2002 which had undertaken substantial expansion by the way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 14/6/02 or have made new investment on or after 14/6/02 and such new investment is directly attributable to the generation of additional regular employment of not less than 25% over and above the base employment limit subject to certain conditions mentioned in the notification. The exemption under this notification would apply to the eligible units for period not exceeding 10 years from the date of publication of this exemption notification in the official gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production, whichever is later. In this notification, there is no sun set provision. As per the conditions of this notification, a manufacturer eligible for this exemption notification who has opted for the same, is required to pay duty payable for a particular month, first by utilising to the extent possible the Cenvat credit available to him at the end of the month and only after payment of duty to the extent possible through Cenvat credit, if any duty is still to be paid, the same is to be paid through PLA, and it is this duty paid through PLA which is exempt under this notification. The exemption under this notification is granted by the way of refund and accordingly the assessee initially pays the duty required to be paid through PLA by debit entry in PLA and, thereafter, he can either apply to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for its refund and on his orders take credit in the PLA or he can take self-credit of the duty refundable in his PLA and inform the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for ex-post facto approval. Another feature of this notification is that while the manufacturer eligible for this exemption gets refund of the duty paid through PLA in the manner prescribed in this notification, his customer buying the goods from him and using the same as input for use in the manufacture of some other final products, would in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, be eligible for Cenvat credit of full duty as if no the duty exemption has been availed. In this case, the goods being manufactured by them are other than those mentioned in Annexure I and thus are covered by this notification and according to the appellant their manufacturing unit is located in the area which is mentioned in Annexure II and as such according to the appellant, the exemption Notification No. 56/02-CE is applicable to them.
1.2 The above exemption notification was amended by Central Government by Notification No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and Notification No. 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08. In terms of these amendments the exemption was restricted to the duty of excise or AED (GSI)/AED (T&TA) payable on the value addition undertaken in the manufacture of the eligible goods or the duty paid through PLA in respect of the goods cleared during a month after payment of duty to the extent possible by utilising Cenvat credit available at the end of the month, whichever is lower. The notification also prescribed the percentage of value addition for different final products. Thus if the duty paid in respect of the clearances made during a month through PLA after payment of duty to the extent possible by utilising the Cenvat credit available at the end of the month, is more than the duty payable on the value addition at the rate prescribed in this notification, the benefit of exemption would be restricted to the duty of the value addition at the rate as prescribed in this notification. However, the amended notification also had a provision that a manufacturer availing of this exemption will have option not to avail the rates of value addition as specified in this notification and apply to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for a higher value addition if he proves that his actual value addition is at least 115% of the rate specified in the notification. The actual value addition was to be calculated in terms of explanation to Clause 2.1 of the amended notification.
1.3 The above-mentioned amendments made to Notification No. 56/02-CE by Notifications No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08, which restricted the benefit available to an assessee availing of Notification No. 56/02-CE were challenged by a manufacturer M/s Reckitt Benckiser by filing a writ-petition before Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court and Honble High Court vide order dated 23/12/10 quashed the Notifications No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and Notification No. 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08 in this regard the last para of the judgement is reproduced below :-
In view of the above detailed discussion, I need not enter into this arena as the writ petitions are being disposed of without addressing this controversy.
For the reasons mentioned above, these petitions are allowed. Impugned Notifications bearing Nos. 19/2008-CE dated 27th of March 2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10th of June, 2008, shall stand quashed. The petitioner-units shall continue to avail the benefit of exemption from payment of excise duty as provided in terms of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14th of November, 2002. The respondent State, however, shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with the relevant rules against those unscrupulous manufacturers who are involved in illegal activities of alleged bogus production. Disposed of accordingly, alongwith connected CMPs.
1.4 In the meantime on 06/2/10, the Central Government had issued another exemption Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06/2/10. This notification also exempted the goods other than the goods mentioned in the Annexure I to the Notification from the duty of excise eligible under Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also from AED (GSI) and AED (T&TA) to the extent these duties have been paid on the value addition in the manufacture of the goods, at the rates specified in this notification or the duty on the goods cleared during a month paid through PLA after utilising the Cenvat credit available at the end of the month to the extent possible for payment of duty, whichever is less. This exemption notification, however, was not restricted to the units located in any specified area and was applicable to the goods manufactured and cleared from any unit located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. This exemption notification was applicable to the new industrial units which commenced production on or after 06/2/10 and also to the industrial units existing before 06/2/10 which had either undertaken substantial expansion of installed capacity by not less than 25% on or after 06/2/10 or have made new investment on or after 06/2/10 and such new investment has resulted in generation of additional regular employment of not less than 25% over and above the base employment limit, subject to the conditions mentioned in the notification. This exemption notification also had a provision that a manufacturer availing of this exemption may opt not to avail of the value addition rates as prescribed in this notification and may apply to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for fixing special rates of value addition if in his case the actual value addition is 115% or more of the value addition specified in the notification. In this notification also the actual value addition was to be calculated in terms of explanation to para 5 of the exemption notification. Under this notification also a manufacturer availing of this exemption was required to pay the duty to the extent possible through Cenvat credit available at the end of the month and only the duty payable through PLA was refundable subject to the cap of the duty payable on the value addition at the rate specified in this exemption notification or, as the case may be, at the special rate of value addition fixed by the Commissioner on the application of the manufacturer or the duty paid through PLA, whichever is less. Exemption Notification dated 06/2/10 was also available to a unit opting for this exemption for a period of 10 years from the date of publication of the notification or from the date of commercial production, whichever is later.
1.5 In this case, as stated above, the appellant had commenced commercial production in March, 2012. The appellant on 30th March, 2012 addressed a letter to the Commissioner for exemption of 100% of the duty paid through PLA under Notification No. 1/2010-CE and requested the Commissioner to fix a special rate of value addition for 2012-13. Thereafter, the appellant issued a reminder dated 16/4/12 to the Commissioner and in this regard by another letter dated 17/5/12 the appellant provided certain details in support of their claim for higher value addition for 2012-13. The Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 31/5/12 fixed the value addition as 69.27% for 2012-2013. The appeal No. E/2884/2012-EX (DB) has been filed against order dated 31/5/12 of the Commissioner challenging the percentage of value addition fixed by the Commissioner.
1.6 For the subsequent financial year 2013-2014, the appellant furnished their calculations of value addition under their letter dated 14/5/13 and also enclosed a copy of their audited balance sheet for 2012-13. The Department sought certain clarifications and further information, but the appellant requested the Department, to keep their matter pending till their appeal against the Commissioners order dated 31/5/12 fixing their value addition as 69.27% is decided by the Tribunal. Since, there was no response from the appellant, the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 01/4/14 rejected their application for fixation of special rate of value addition for 2013-14 and accordingly the assessee for the financial year 2013-14 have to avail the value addition of 36% specified in the exemption notification. Against this order of the Commissioner, appeal No. E/54271/14 EX (DB) has been filed. In this appeal the appellant have also claimed to be eligible for Notification No. 56/02-CE.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. S/Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate and Jatin Singhal, Advocate, proxy counsel for Shri Rupesh Kumar, representing the appellant, pleaded that during the period of dispute, both the Notifications No. 56/02-CE dated 14/11/02 as well as the subsequent Notification No. 1/10-CE dated 06/2/10 were applicable to the units located in the areas specified in Notification No. 56/02-CE, that the appellants unit had commenced commercial production in March, 2012 and is located in the area specified under Notification No. 56/02-CE, that just because by mistake the appellant wrote to the Jurisdictional Commissioner, Central Excise for fixation of special rate of value addition under Notification No. 1/10-CE, they cannot be denied the benefit of Notification No. 56/02-CE, that though the amending Notification No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08 restricted the benefit of exemption Notification No. 56/02-CE only to the duty paid on the value addition at the rate specified in this notification or as the case may be, at the special rate fixed by the Commissioner, or the duty paid through PLA after utilising the Cenvat credit available at the end of the month to the extent possible for payment of duty, whichever is lower, Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in respect of writ-petition filed by M/s Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India vide its judgment dated 23/12/2010 reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 194 (J&K) has quashed the amending Notification No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08, that in view of this, an assessee manufacturing the goods covered by Notification No. 56/02-CE in the factory located in the areas specified in this notification, is eligible for exemption of 100% of the duty paid through PLA in the manner specified in this notification and the benefit is not restricted to the duty on the value addition at the rate specified in this notification or at the special rate fixed by the Commissioner, that since after the judgment of Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/s Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India (supra) the Notification No. 56/02-CE is more beneficial to the appellant and since the appellant are eligible for this exemption notification, the Notification No. 1/2002-CE cannot be forced upon them and the benefit cannot be restricted accordingly, that in this regard they rely upon Apex Courts judgement in the case of Share Medical Care vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), wherein the Apex court has held that even if an assessee does not claim the benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estoppels from claiming such benefit at a later stage and that in view of this, the impugned orders denying the benefit of 100% exemption of the duty paid through PLA in the manner specified in the Notification is not correct.
4. Shri R.K. Grover and Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DRs, defended the impugned orders by reiterating the finding of the Commissioner and emphasised that since the appellant from the very beginning had written to the Commissioner for fixation of the special rate of value addition under Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06/2/10, they cannot migrate to Notification No. 56/02-CE, that in any case, even if it is held that Notification No. 56/02-CE is applicable to them, they cannot get the benefit of the judgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/s Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India (supra) as that judgment is applicable only to those assessees who had set up the manufacturing unit in the specified areas during the period prior to the 27/3/08, while this is not so in this case, that since in this case the appellant had commenced commercial production in March 2012 and had opted for Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06/2/10 by requesting the Jurisdictional Commissioner to fix special rate of value addition, they have to abide by the Commissioners decision and they cannot claim exemption equal to 100% of the duty paid through PLA in the manner specified in this notification. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner.
5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. The Notification No. 56/02-CE dated 14/11/02 issued in accordance with the industrial policy 1998-2003 promulgated by the State of Jammu & Kashmir exempted the goods covered by this exemption notification and manufactured in the areas specified in this notification from the Central Excise duty leviable under Section 3 (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the AED (GSI) and AED (T&TA) leviable on the goods to the extent the duty on the goods cleared during a month is paid by the assessee through PLA after payment of duty to the extent possible through Cenvat credit available at the end of the month. Thus, the exemption benefit available to an assessee in terms of this exemption notification was total duty payable by the assessee in respect of the goods cleared during a month minus the total Cenvat credit available to him at the end of the month. Thus, in terms of this notification, higher is the duty payable by an assessee and lower is the Cenvat credit available to him, the more would be the benefit, which was being given to him by the way of refund sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner or self-credit in the PLA which would be approved ex-post facto by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Another feature of this exemption scheme is that while the assessee manufacturing the goods eligible for this exemption in the factory located in the areas specified in this notification cleared the goods by availing of this exemption, his customers even if located outside the exempted areas, were, in terms of Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, eligible for Cenvat credit of full duty, as if no duty exemption was availed in respect of the goods
7. The Central Government in order to curb the tendency on the part of the manufacturers in the specified areas of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to inflate the exemption benefit and inflate the Cenvat credit being passed on by them to their customers by inflating the duty payment by adopting various modus operandi amended the Notification No. 56/02-CE by Notification No. 19/08-CFE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08 and by these amendments, the quantum of exemption was restricted to the duty payable on the value addition at the rate specified in this notification or at the special rate fixed by the Commissioner on the assessees request or the duty paid through PLA in the manner specified in this notification, whichever is lower. This amendment was challenged by filing a writ-petition No. 470/2008 before Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court by M/s Reckitt Benckiser. However, before this writ-petition could be decided by Honble High Court, the Central Government issued a new Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06/2/10 which was applicable to the same goods to which the Notification No. 6/02-CE was applicable, the only difference being that this exemption notification was applicable to all the manufacturing units located in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the exemption benefit was not confined the goods manufactured by the units in certain specified areas. This notification also restricted the benefit of the exemption only to the duty payable on the value addition at the rates specified in the notification or the special rates fixed by the Commissioner on the assessees request or the duty paid through PLA in respect of the clearances made during a month after utilising to the extent possible the Cenvat credit available at the end of the month, whichever is lower. However, after issue of this notification, Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court vide its judgment dated 23/12/10 in respect of the writ-petition filed by M/s Reckitt Benckiser quashed the amendment made to the Notification No. 56/02-CE by Notification No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08. The effect of this judgment is that under Notification No. 56/02-CE applicable to the goods other than the goods specified in the negative list of Annexure I of the notification and manufactured and cleared from the industrial areas specified in Annexure II to the notification, the exemption from duty would be available extent the duty is paid in respect of the goods cleared during a month through PLA after utilising to the extent possible the Cenvat credit available at the end of the month for payment of duty, without the cap which had been specified under Notification No. 19/06-CE and 34/08-CE. The other exemption Notification No. 1/10-CE dated 06/2/10 applicable to the same goods but manufactured and cleared from any manufacturing unit in the State of Jammu & Kashmir exempted the specified duties to the extent of payment of duty through PLA in the manner specified in this exemption subject to the cap of the quantum of exemption not being more than the duty payable on the value addition at the rate specified in the notification or as the case may be, at the special rate fixed by the Commissioner or payment of duty through PLA after payment of duty to the extent possible through Cenvat credit available at the end of the month, whichever is lower. Since, both the exemption notifications are in force, a unit located in the area specified in Notification No. 56/02-CE has option either to avail of the exemption Notification No. 56/02-CE or avail of Notification No. 1/2010-CE.
8. In this case, the appellant had commenced production sometime in March 2012 and had initially written to the Commissioner for fixing of the special rate of value addition under Notification No. 1/2010-CE and the Commissioner vide order dated 31/5/12 had fixed the rate of value addition as 69.27% for 2012-13. The appellant, however, had sought exemption of 100% of the duty paid through PLA in the manner specified in this notification, that is, after payment of duty to the extent possible through the Cenvat credit available at the end of the month and have challenged this order by filing an appeal to the Tribunal. For the subsequent year i.e. 2013-2014 the appellant requested the Commissioner to wait for decision of their appeal to the Tribunal against the Commissioners order dated 31/5/12 but the Commissioner has rejected their application for fixing special rate as a result of which they have to avail general rate of 36% of the value addition specified in the notification. Against this order dated 01/4/14 the second appeal has been filed. In respect of the both the appeals, the appellants plea is that since their unit is located in the area specified under Notification No. 56/02-CE and since they, by mistake, had applied to the Commissioner for fixing special rate under Notification No. 1/2010-CE and since Notification No. 56/02-CE is more beneficial to them in view of the judgment of Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/s Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India (supra), they should be allowed to avail of exemption Notification No. 56/02-CE and in this regard rely upon the Apex Courts judgment in the case of Share Medical Care vs. Union of India (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial stage he is not debarred, prohibited or estoppels from claiming such benefit at a later stage. The plea of the learned DR, however, is that the judgment of Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/s Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India (supra) is in respect of writ-petition filed by M/s Reckitt Benckiser and this judgment would not be applicable to the appellant, as while M/s Reckitt Benckiser had set up their unit before 27/3/08 and, therefore, on the basis of the principle of promissory estoppels Honble High Court held that the benefit available to them at the time of setting up of the unit cannot be restricted by the later amendment, this principle is not applicable in the appellants case who had commenced commercial production in March, 2012.
8.1 After considering the rival submission on this point, we find that Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in its judgment dated 23/12/10 in the case of M/s Reckitt Benckiser has quashed the amendments to the Notification No. 56/02-CE by Notification No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08 and the effect of the judgment would be that the provisions restricting the benefit introduced in the Notification No. 56/02-CE by these notifications are no longer there. Therefore, in our view, this judgment of Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court would be applicable to those assessees also who had opted for this exemption even after the amendment to the Notification No. 56/02-CE by Notification No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08. Thus those assessees who have set up their units in the areas specified under Notification No. 56/02-CE on or after 06/2/10, have option either to avail Notification No. 56/02-CE or avail the Notification No. 1/2010-CE dated 06/2/10 and in case they opt for Notification No. 56/02-CE, the benefit available to them would not be restricted by Notification No. 19/08-CE dated 27/3/08 and 34/08-CE dated 10/6/08. However those assessees who have set up their units on or after 06/2/10 in the areas of the State of Jammu & Kashmir other than those specified under Notification No. 56/02-CE, have no option but to avail the Notification No. 1/2010-CE and the benefit available to them would be restricted by the provisions of this exemption notification and in their case the judgment of Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of M/s Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India (supra) would not be applicable.
9. In this case, if unit of the appellant is located in the area specified the Notification No. 56/02-CE and if they opt for exemption under this notification, in our view, the same cannot be denied in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Share Medical Care vs. Union of India (supra), even if they had applied to the Commissioner for special rate of value addition under Notification No. 1/2010-CE.
10. If the appellant, however, opt for the Notification No. 1/2010-CE, the question of determination of special rate of value addition by the Commissioner would come. This rate has to be calculated on the basis of the formula prescribed in the Explanation to para 5 of the notification. In this regard, we do not find any mistake in para 17 of the order-in-original dated 31/5/12 passed by the Commissioner as the value addition has been determined as the difference between the sale value excluding excise, sales tax and other indirect taxes during 2011-12 (Rs. 1,05,11,690/-) and cost of raw material and packing material consumed (Rs. 32,30,184/-). Accordingly, the percentage of value addition has been determined as 10511690 3230184 X 100 10511690 = 69.27% Appellants contention is that the value of raw material and packing material should be taken as nil as no Cenvat credit has been taken in respect of the same. This plea of the appellant is not correct as in Explanation to para 5 of the notification, what is to be deducted is
(a) cost of raw materials and packing materials consumed in the manufacture of said goods ;
(b) cost of fuel consumed if eligible for input credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ; and
(c) Value of the finished goods available as inventory, in the unit, but not cleared, at the end of the financial year proceeding that under consideration.
Here the cost/value of (b) and (c) is nil. In respect of (a), there is no condition that the cost of only these inputs and packing materials is to be deducted in respect of which Cenvat credit has been taken. Therefore, the appellants plea that the cost of raw material and packing material consumed is nil is not correct and the Commissioner has correctly determined the value addition for 2012-13 as 69.27%. If for 2013-14 the appellant opt for Notification 1/2010-CE and also opt for special rate of value addition, the same must be determined in terms of the above formula.
11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Commissioner for denovo decision. The Commissioner should examine as to whether the appellants unit is located in the area specified under Notification No. 56/02-CE and they satisfy other conditions, if any, of this exemption notification, the benefit of this notification would have to be extended to them and the judgment of Honble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in case of M/s Reckitt Benckiser vs. Union of India (supra) would be applicable. If, however, the appellant opt for Notification No. 1/2010-CE, and they opt for special rate of value addition, their value addition for 2012-13 would be 69.27% as determined by the Commissioners in order-in-original dated 31/5/12 and the value addition for 2013-14 shall be determined in the same manner on the basis of the data furnished by the appellant.
12. Both the appeals stand disposed of as above.
(Pronounced in open court on 13/03/2015.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
20