Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lok Sabha Debates

Combined Discussion Regarding Disapproval Of Customs Tariff (Amendment) ... on 3 March, 2003

font> 14.24 hrs. Title: Combined discussion regarding disapproval of Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003 and passing of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill, 2003 (Resolution withdrawn and Bill passed) MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, the House shall take up Item Nos. 14 and 15 together.

Shri Basu Deb Acharia : Not Present.

Shri Prabodh Panda.

SHRI PRABODH PANDA (MIDNAPORE) : Sir, I beg to move the following resolution:

"That this House disapproves of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003 (No. 1 of 2003) promulgated by the President on 20 January, 2003. "

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Now, the hon. Minister to move the Bill. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRABODH PANDA : Sir, the Minister is absent.… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI (RAIGANJ): Sir, what is happening in the House, I would like to know… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRABODH PANDA : It seems, he has gone for some other business… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, the Minister just introduces the Bill and leaves the House… (Interruptions)…Now, the Statutory Resolution has been moved, and another Minister is here to reply. To get it for consideration, now another Minister is standing.… (Interruptions)

       

This is not the procedure. It is an insult to the House. It is dereliction of duty and total abuse of power of the Government. Is this the way Parliament should function? … (Interruptions) Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, till the Minister comes back, no business can be transacted here. This is not the way. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Adsul, the other Minister of Finance is here.

… (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (SHRI ANANDRAO VITHOBA ADSUL): Sir, there is some little problem. He is coming back here just now. But I will move the Bill. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, I just like to inform you one thing. We are told that the Finance Minister in whose name the item of business is listed, has authorised Shri Gingee Ramachandran. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Shri Dasmunsi, please sit down.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : No, Sir. Please allow me to submit. The item of business was listed in the name of the Finance Minister, Shri Jaswant Singh. But he has authorised Shri Gingee Ramachandran. … (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRIMATI SUSHMA SWARAJ): He was here. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : No. He was not here. He came now. But another Minister got up and said he would introduce. … (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI SUSHMA SWARAJ: He was here and he just now left for a while. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, this is the way, this Government functions! It is like musical chair! … (Interruptions) Sir, now, that Minister has to withdraw his comments and then only, he should introduce the Bill. … (Interruptions)

SHRI ANANDRAO VITHOBA ADSUL: I also belong to the same Department. What is the wrong in it? … (Interruptions)

श्री प्रियरंजन दासमुंशी:यह कोई तरीका है ! श्रीमती सुषमा स्वराज : उपाध्यक्ष जी, इंट्रोडक्शन के बाद चूंकि नियम ३७७ के अधीन मामले चल रहे थे। स्वाभाविक तौर पर उन्होंने सोचा होगा कि मैं पानी पी आऊं। वह पानी पीने चले गए। उन्हें नहीं लगा कि इसी बीच नियम ३७७ के अधीन मामले खत्म हो गए हैं। बहुत स्वाभाविक मिस्टेक है, फिर भी मैं चाहती हूं कि मंत्री जी एपोलोजाइज करके शुरू करें।

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, now you can just express your regrets.

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (SHRI GINGEE N. RAMACHANDRAN): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I apologise; I just went out for a few minutes. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : It is okay. … (Interruptions)

SHRI GINGEE N. RAMACHANDRAN: Matters under rule 377 was going on; and I just went out for a few minutes. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : We have all the respects for you. … (Interruptions)

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You may please move the Bill for consideration.

SHRI GINGEE N. RAMACHANDRAN: Sir, I beg to move:

"That the Bill further to amend the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, be taken into consideration."

 

   

SHRI PRABODH PANDA : I moved the Resolution because it is going to replace the Ordinance, which has been promulgated just a few days before the Budget Session had been called. The Government knew that the Budget Session was coming, but still it did it. I do not understand what was the hurry, because just a few days before this important Budget Session, it was promulgated. So, it is as good as ‘Ordinance Raj’.

In the last Winter Session of Parliament, many hon. Members of this august House raised this point and said that this practice should not be followed. Broadly, this sense has been brought forward in this House and it was expected that henceforth, the Government would not follow such methods. But it is unfortunate that just before this Budget Session had been called, this Ordinance had been promulgated. It is just like ignoring the Parliament and ignoring the democratic norms of Parliament. They are just doing something by ‘Ordinance Raj’. So, I am against it.

Customs duty continues to be a major source of tax revenue not only for India but also for most of the developing countries of the world. Therefore, it should not be handled piece meal. High levels of subsidy being given to the agricultural sector by developed countries results in uncompetitive high tariff rates which can be used effectively as the bargaining instrument. We should have a strategic tariff policy. It should not be taken up piecemeal. It is not the question of nomenclature facility or digit classification alone. It is only to facilitate the foreign players, the multinationals. So, it is an important aspect which should be taken as a whole.

It could easily be understood that there is a talk of pressure from the WTO regulations which call for slashing of import duties, digit classifications, nomenclature facilities so as to make it easier and more lucrative for the multinational players to trade in India. So, it is for facilitating the multinationals, the foreign players. Customs duty is a very important part of the Budget. Even before the deliberations on Budget has started, the Government had come out with this Bill, which is quite unfortunate. As I have said earlier, in my view the matters relating to customs tariff should not be taken piecemeal. But it has become a regular practice of this NDA Government This National Democratic Government, NDA, has lost its literal meaning. The connotation is, it is called the National Government whereas it is pursuing the anti-national policies. It is called Democratic, but is ignoring the democratic methods. It is called Alliance, in fact it is manipulating everything to bring to fore its hidden agenda. It seems that there is no alliance any more. Today itself during the ‘Zero Hour’ not only the Members of Opposition but also the Members of the partners of this so called NDA Government raised a number of issues making us think as to whether there is really an alliance between them.

I wish the Minister, the Government, to reply as to what was the hurry to bring this Ordinance just before the Budget Session, a few days before the House was called. So, I move this Resolution and hope that the House would accept it.

SHRI GINGEE N. RAMACHANDRAN: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, we have introduced this Bill replacing the Ordinance due to the urgency of trade and commerce and other related departments of the Commerce Ministry. They have referred the matters to the customs because there are a number of classifications in the Tariff code, especially the Customs Duty.

There are too many organisations in the international market. The idea was to have a system of nomenclature, and to harmonise the matters relating to customs duty, commerce, etc. That is the reason why it was talked about previously also. The Ministry of Commerce and the Export Promotion Board had also recommended this for facilitating trade, industry, exports, import, etc. They had also recommended that this matter should be taken up immediately. After considering all these important aspects, we have brought the classification of items. We are adopting the six digit statistics for customs and tariff. At the international level, they take eight digits as base and some take ten-digits as base. If we do this, it would reduce the transaction cost. We could then feed the data into the computer. It is essential for us to introduce this kind of measure.

Therefore, the NDA Government had to issue this Ordinance. We do not have any intention to dishonour Parliament or the democratic process. We issued the Ordinance as there was urgency. Now, we have introduced this Bill that replaces the Ordinance which was promulgated in January. It came into force on 1st February. The whole idea was to reduce the transaction cost of trade and industry. We can easily get the correct information. There would be prescribed trade and industry people who would be engaged in this. It would help in collecting the data urgently. Hence we have taken a policy decision to introduce the Bill.

I also express my thanks to the hon. Member who has expressed his views about customs duty. I may make it clear that this Bill is not for increasing or decreasing the duties. This Bill only seeks to simply certain procedures and to facilitate data collection from trade and industry. That is the only objective. It will not result in any revenue loss. It is not to disturb the tax structure. It will not have any impact on the revenue collection. It will ensure proper compliance of the importers and exporters. It would be easy to know how much have been imported, the types of goods imported, its quantity, etc. Everything will be reflected clearly. As there was an urgency to introduce those measures, that Ordinance was promulgated.

I thank the hon. Member for giving his suggestions and I request the hon. Members to pass this Bill.

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Motions moved:

"That this House disapproves of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003 (No.1 of 2003) promulgated by the President on 20 January, 2003."

"That the Bill further to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1975, be taken into consideration."

 

 

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI (RAIGANJ): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, it is very unfortunate that the Government -- and that too the Ministry of Finance -- is trying to bring in legislation one after another through the corridor of Ordinance without explaining the reasons for urgency.

Sir, the hon. Minister has just now stated that it is not a Bill to effect any reduction or increase in the import duty. It is just to facilitate trade management in the country by changing the Schedule of certain items and also to facilitate the Statistical Department of Commercial Intelligence in the Ministry of Commerce.

Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very volume of this Bill. It is more than the size of a dictionary! The hon. Minister expects that he would circulate the Bill 72 hours before it is discussed in the House and the hon. Members would go through every page of this Bill and then come back to take part in the debate. I wonder if the hon. Minister himself has gone through all the provisions of this Bill. I would not like to embarrass the hon. Minister by quoting the pages and chapters. I am sure the hon. Minister will not be able to respond to those.

Sir, is it the way the Parliament should be treated? Is it the way the NDA Government should treat the Parliament on a vital matter of classification of goods and items in the respective Schedules? What is the essence of the Bill? The Bill is only to amend section 11 and add another section 11 (A) to substitute the First Schedule. It is nothing more than that. Now, if the hon. Members were to go and find out as to what are the itmes that have been added to the Schedule to facilitate trade in six and eight digits, then they would have to go through the entire Bill. That is the why, the Parliament, in its wisdom, had constituted the Standing Committees. The Standing Committees have enough time to go into the whole matter and give suggestions. A few bureaucrats in the Ministry of Commerce in Udyog Bhawan and in the Ministry of Finance have prepared this document and has asked the Minister to issue an Ordinance and later on to get it endorsed by the Parliament. The Parliament should not be taken so lightly. We also can contribute to it. There are eminent experts in this House who have worked for a long time in the Ministry Finance and in the Department of Customs or even in public life and who would know as to what is to be done and what is not to be done and which are the areas that could have further been brought in this. We could have given good suggestions to improve upon this whole concept. But the time is limited. If the Government had the sincere intention of broad-basing the tariff regime by accommodating the classifications in a proper manner, both in the six and eight digits, and substitute it in the First Schedule, then they should have welcomed the proposal of introducing the Bill – without promulgating an Ordinance – and sending it to the Standing Committee with a mandatory direction from the Chair to bring it back to the House in the next part of this Budget Session, that is after the recess period, and to be taken up before the Demands for Grants and the Finance Bill is voted. In that case the whole thing could have been done in a more proper and harmonious manner in the Standing Committee. But now the hon. Minister thought that he would circulate the Bill just before 72 hours, no hon. Member would be able to read it, they would just have a cursory reading and then give their consent to the Bill and he would then go before the television and say that he has carried this Bill. This is not the way.

Sir, sometimes the Media accuses the Opposition saying that the Opposition takes away too much time of the House and obstructs the proceedings of the House and the Government cannot transact its business. This time the Media should note as to how the Government is transacting its business. A Bill of this voluminous size has been circulated just before 72 hours and the Members even cannot go through it properly, even the hon. Minister is not aware of all the provisions contained in the Bill. Could the hon. Minister explain to me as to why Madhubani Paintings and Kalamkari Paintings have been clubbed in eight digit and are to be done in England and are to be imported here. What is the basis of this? Would the hon. Minister kindly explain to me? … (Interruptions) He cannot explain this because he has not gone through it. The import of bovine animal meat has been categorised in one particular category and has been barred in another category. Why has it been done so? Now, if we start asking you all these questions, then the time allotted for discussing this Bill would not be enough.

Sir, I have every sympathy with the hon. Minister. I would neither like to blame him nor embarrass him and nor disregard him. But this is not the way to come to the House and take the sanction of the House. Therefore, I strongly feel that there was no hurry, no exigency and no emergency neither to promulgate this Ordinance nor to bring forward this Bill in this manner. Heavens would not have fallen if he had not brought the Ordinance. The proposals could have come in the form of a normal Bill. We also could have given our ideas. I had worked in at least one Ministry, the Ministry of Commerce, where the classification and categorisation had started a long time since to facilitate the Director of Commercial Intelligence.

But there are many areas we could not even ponder over, except to vomit whatever you desired from us. Therefore, this is a very bad tactic of the NDA Government to always by-pass the Parliament to get this kind of Bills passed hurriedly without explaining the urgency or exigency of taking the ordinance route. How much trade volume has been increased from 1st February to 28th February by bringing this ordinance with effect from 1st February? What are the special facilities that you have ensured? I will demand from you to give statistics up to 28th February, from 1st February, from the DGCI Report on the specified items of meat, animal husbandry, milk, foodstock and bird import. Can you give the statistics on the total arms import; how you have categorised these arms installations and the import duty in a separate regime? You cannot. As an intelligent Minister you will say that this is not your job, the Commerce Minister will reply to these queries, you are here to satisfy the technical facilities. But that will not satisfy the Members here. Had it been a normal Bill, I would not have questioned these things. But, since you have brought an ordinance, you have got to explain the urgency.

Urgency can be explained on four counts. Firstly, if you would not have brought the ordinance, the trade regime should have been adversely affected from 1st February till the presentation of the Budget. You may please explain as to how it would have affected and in the present case it has not affected. Secondly, you have said in the objects and reasons that no additional income would be generated nor any expenditure will be incurred because the duty has not been reduced or increased. I fully share your perception. But, did you compare the concession given by the Finance Minister in his Budget speech on the tariff regime of customs? Are they in compliance with the WTO declarations and the Doha Agreement? You should explain to the House all these points after going into detail all the provisions.

Thirdly, you have also got to satisfy the House that after amending clause 11(a) and the First Schedule, no other areas will be left out which have not been classified in this regime either in the eighth digit or in the sixth digit. Otherwise, if you say still there is an opportunity to amend and replace, I do not mind it. Or else, you say, everything has been broad-based and everything has been taken care of and facilitated.

The fourth point is that in future in the given context of globalisation and in the given context of Indian requirement of the farming industry and agro industry, which are the areas where the Government feels strongly that dependence on imports should be reduced or duty should be more and which are the areas where the Government feels that the regime should be further broad-based making a substantive compliance with the WTO. Because, further Ministerial meeting has not been held and it will be held later in the next year. You have got to take into account all these aspects and then come up with the Bill putting across your view. Otherwise, you cannot just say that this ordinance will facilitate the trade and simplify the procedure, without explaining to us all these things. Because you do not know how to simplify the procedure. Only officers will inform you all this at one point of time. Though we are not obstructing and objecting to your getting this Bill passed, we strongly feel that this is not the way you should take the House so lightly on a vital matter of Customs Tariff regime.

In the beginning you made a mistake. You said that it is replacing the old Act. It is not replacing the Customs Act of 1962 or the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. It is an amendment of the 1975 Act and that too limited to section 11, just to substitute the First Schedule. Therefore, this is not a replacement of the Act altogether. So, I feel that the Minister owes an explanation to the House on the four counts that I have just mentioned to the satisfaction of the House before passing this Bill. Or else, if the Government feels that transparency is the order of the day, it should refer the Bill to the Standing Committee. Heavens will not fall if this Ordinance elapses; you can issue another ordinance after this part of the Parliament Session gets over and carry on to facilitate the trade. But the whole Bill should be examined in detail by the Standing Committee of Parliament and report back to the House.

This is my submission from the Congress Party.

SHRI ANADI SAHU (BERHAMPUR, ORISSA): Sir, I stand here in support of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill, 2003.

Shri Dasmunsi has laboured hard to say that it was not necessary to bring in this amendment at this stage without taking, I think, everybody into consideration and confidence. Sir, I think, the volume has caused the daunting affair. The huge volume has created problem as it seems. But it is a very simple thing. We might be seeing people with big body but otherwise, they are innocent fellows. This one also is something like that.

We have passed Information Technology Bill, I think, in the last Session itself or before that. Computerisation is the order of the day. There should not be any repetition and confusion. For example, take the case of footwear in this Bill itself and I would like Shri Dasmunsi to kindly lend me his ears for a few minutes. Footwear could be of different sizes. If you have seen the Sun God in the Parliament House Annexe, you may find that He is the only God in the Hindu pantheon who puts on boots. No other God puts on boots called the galoshes which is upto the knee. And there is Narad who puts on the wooden khadaun. But they should come under the same category of footwear. That is what this Bill is trying to do. All types of footwear should come in one category and one chapter. There should not be any type of confusion in the minds of different types of people.

Now, I come to section 11 (A), as he was mentioning about it, and the Schedule. The Schedule itself says:

"The titles of Sections, Chapters and Sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of headings and any relative Section or Chapter, …."

 I come to one chapter to show how simplification has been made. Since he is a person from West Bengal, he would be more interested in fish and other aqua products. I think it would be better for me to refer to sea products. Let us see how interestingly the nomenclature has been indicated so that there may not be any difference or confusion in one Department or the other in deciding about the different species of articles which are to come within the Customs Act of 1975. Nomenclature is only simplified. Take for example live animals, meat, edible meat, fish and aquatic invertebrates. That is one item.

Let me come to the item of fish and aquatic invertebrates. Now, in the invertebrates, there could be many other things. So, there should be some simplification. What are the simplifications which they have brought in? Oysters is a very good sort of dish for people who are interested in it. And our hon. Deputy-Speaker also knows that French people like oysters than anything else. Snails are invertebrates. But we have not explained it in any other tariff matters. Now, it is being explained in a very beautiful manner. Oysters and snails are invertebrates and they should come in one category. That is why, each chapter has a different definition.

I come to definition of some things for the information of our learned friends themselves. In Kolkata, people would like to have prawns and lobsters. They are the best dishes available there. Rock lobsters are also there. If anybody had seen the Discovery Channel about 15-20 days back, he might have seen different species of lobsters which crawl in the seabed, how they are caught, etc. And this is what the Bill is trying to say, that is, it should come in one category only.

I come to another example. I would not deal on fish now because his mouth also might be watering. I come to footwear and other things, as I have said.

                   

Even rubber footwear could be included in that, although the colour might have changed. Plastics also are to be taken into account. The sole could be different and the upper portion could be different. All these things have been taken into account so that different Ministries which are dealing with these kinds of things do not have any confusion and a simplified, streamlined procedure could be adopted. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it has been very clearly indicated that the need to expand the existing Harmonised System of Nomenclature. It is Harmonised System of Nomenclature. Let us have a harmonisation.

It is not a Finance Bill. Let there be no thinking that it is a Finance Bill. It has nothing to do with the Finance Bill. Any fiscal changes and other things will come in the Finance Bill. Any tariff changes will come in the Finance Bill. It is only to change the heading. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it has been indicated:

"there is no change proposed in the existing rates of customs duties, as such it does not involve any revenue implications. "

 So, it has nothing to do with the Finance Bill and it has got nothing to do with the Budget as such. Only the ‘nomenclature’ will be changed. Now, from six digit we go to eight digit for simplification of procedures. There are different Departments and they have different interpretations for different articles. We should have one system of definition. And definition can come only with the nomenclature. Take, for example, copper and alloys. Clearly, Chapter 74, talks about ‘refined copper’. It has been indicated that copper could be used in industry and for other works also. Even in laboratories, copper could be used. They have given a very elaborate indication of the nomenclatures that are to be taken into account, like refined copper, copper alloys, master alloys, bars and rods, profiles, wire, plates, sheets, strips and foils. There could be some sub-heading also. There could be some differences and difficulties among the different Departments. To overcome these kinds of differences and difficulties, this Bill has taken into account the sub-headings. A note has been given for different sub-headings so that so that the quality or the other aspects that is required can be taken into consideration.

Since we are in the WTO regime and liberalised system of work, we must immediately find out what is to be done, instead of going into the interpretation part of it. There will be a lot of legal difficulties. That is why this Ordinance has been brought with all good intentions. An Ordinance has been brought to tackle a particular programme at a particular given moment of time. I am telling this in a very common way. I am not going into the constitutionality of it. It has to be tackled in a proper manner at a particular given moment of time. The Ordinance has to be placed in Parliament so that the Bill is passed and everything gets streamlined. This is what is to be done now itself. The Statement of Objects and Reasons has been very clear about it. Maybe the bulkiness of it has taunted the appreciative gestures of our good friends because they have to go into all the details. There are a number of them. It is very simple. From six digit, we go to the eight digit and we give definitions of different articles, different alloys, and different derivatives.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Will you please yield? I will take just a minute.

You please refer to page 461. There, you find the description of goods for horticulture or forestry machinery for soil preparation or cultivation; lawn or sports ground rollers. That is one category. In the same page, you please refer to item no. 8432. There, again ‘lawn or sports ground rollers’ has been mentioned. This is in another category. This is where, we want an explanation. This is not correct. You mentioned something. I am giving you an example.

SHRI ANADI SAHU : I fully agree with you.

For example, take sickle. I will come to that. Of course, it is not my duty to explain it. Now, sickle can be used in the lawn. It can be used for other purposes also. They are completely different. It can be different. The import of that particular item has to depend on the sub-head.

15.00 hrs. I am not talking about the Chapter itself. We have also to go through the Sub-Head and then say about this. I would request the hon. Member Shri Dasmunsi to go through the Sub-Head also. It cannot stand in isolation. It is not a matter of argument but sharing information.… (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Shri Sahu, you are suffering from a nomenclature confusion. I am saying that if it had been debated in the Standing Committee, then we could have much more constructive things to be offered on Sub-Head and classification also. It is not a quarrel. That is why, I have given an example.… (Interruptions)

SHRI ANADI SAHU : It is not at all a quarrel. All right, I now come to the repealing Acts. The Parliament, in its wisdom, thought that all those repealing Acts should be referred to the Standing Committee. There were about 1,100 repealing Acts which were not in vogue. I am a Member of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs. What has the Standing Committee done? It did nothing because there was nothing to do in that. We were able to go through 950 Acts. We said that they should be repealed. This will be exactly the same thing if it goes to the Standing Committee also because the Standing Committee has nothing to do with the nomenclature itself. The nomenclature has been given in a proper manner. … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : I would like to cite an example. In 1975, the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill was discussed in a Select Committee in depth. It was then brought forward before the House. I was in the House at that time. It was discussed in the Select Committee in-depth and then it was brought before the House. You may differ with me but I am submitting the facts.… (Interruptions)

SHRI ANADI SAHU : I beg to differ with Shri Dasmunsi on the question of interpretation itself. What would they do? From six digits, it will go to eight digits. The fiscal responsibility matters and all such things would not go into discussion at all. We have passed the Bill relating to Information Technology and computers. We have passed a lot of Bills so that we come into the simplified procedure. We have even changed the Indian Evidence Act itself. We have changed the Companies Law. We have brought computers, liberalisation into vogue. Here, since a different Department will be involved, let there be no confusion. Let one Department not give one interpretation and let another Department not give another interpretation. So, simplification of the procedure is the order of the day.

Then, what is the necessity of referring this simple Bill to the Standing Committee? There is no necessity. Thousands of such interpretations are there. This is a computerised thing. In my own opinion, the rule-making power of the Government could have been utilised to change all these things. Maybe, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs might have gone through the Bill. They might have said that it would be better to place it in the form of a Bill. But, in my own opinion, there was no necessity at all to do that. They have to change the interpretation part of it only. In the Schedule itself, it could have been given and the rule-making power of the Government could have been taken into account. The general Explanatory Notes could have been taken into account. Rules could have been framed and the rules could have been placed on the Table of the House within thirty days so that the Members could have seen all these things. They have brought forward such a bulky and voluminous Bill. That is why, it is getting some sort of a disenchantment with the Members. Otherwise, it is a very simple Bill.

I would finally suggest that this Bill should be passed. I think Shri Dasmunsi has left in a huff. But I would suggest that this Bill should not be opposed and it should be passed.

With these words, I conclude.

SHRI RUPCHAND PAL (HOOGLY): Sir, at the very outset, I would like to say that just before 27 days, to be precise, of the commencement of this Parliament Session, this Ordinance was promulgated. What was the hurry in it? I do not know about it. Nor, could the hon. Minister convince us about it. The Heaven would not have fallen had they waited till the Session started. We could have well taken it up as a Bill itself.

Bringing about uniformity and simplicity in a system is a welcome thing particularly when our trade and economy has been integrated with the global economy. We may agree or we may not agree. We have serious reservations about the way we have entered into the WTO agreement and have subjugated ourselves to the provisions of the WTO which are against our national interest.

But the integration clauses should have taken into account certain country-specific problems, particularly problems faced by our country. First, the classification, re-classification and mis-classification of several goods and commodities in the process of import as also in the process of export have been one of the grey areas which has been used, rather misused by several Governments in the past to cater to the interests of their friendly lobbies and also to just influence certain other sections. On the other hand, certain business lobbies having knowledge of these classifications, re-classifications or interpretations of potential areas of dispute exploited the situation. By indulging in irregularities in the invoicing system, they derived benefits and they are being patronised. There is a concrete case to prove this. M/s Florida Research Group have come to the conclusion that India is such a country where their exporters have accumulated foreign exchange to the tune of $ 8 billion in one year only by indulging in several irregularities in the invoicing system and that too they derived benefits by their own way of interpreting this classification.

Then, there are importers who have an obligation to export. We have seen 100 per cent export-oriented units importing goods by exploiting the grey areas of mis-classification and they have never fulfilled any obligation for export. There are reports of important committees which say that such obligations for export have never been fulfilled, particularly by export-oriented units involved in importing gold for making jewellery.

Sir, the tariffs that have been fixed through such classification have created confusion not only in the minds of certain business community, but also among the common people at large. For example, garments can be interpreted in various ways, like two-piece garments, three-piece garments, garments for the upper part of the body, for the lower part of the body, etc. They can be classified in innumerable ways. Now, we have decided to integrate our economy into the multilateral system to get more benefits. The remarkable feature to be noticed here is that although one of the key reasons given for our joining the World Trade Organisation and following the path of economic reforms was that we would benefit from our export and we would benefit from what we import for export, in terms of overall global export performance, we account for less than half per cent. Even after a decade of economic reforms, we have not been able to perform well on the export front, but we have been importing what we should not import. For example, as a result of our joining the multilateral system, quantitative restrictions in respect of 1,429 items, which we can produce, have been removed.

The things are coming even where we have tried to put restrictions. Things are being imported under the garb of different classifications although they mean the same thing. Such a move - universally practised six-digit to eight-digit nomenclature - I think, may add to a little bit of more transparency in the system. Our trade statistics and real quantum of imports vis-à-vis the quantum of exports can also be accounted for in a better manner if we go for this internationally accepted nomenclature. In that sense, it is a welcome measure.

But there are many other areas of dispute. Take, for example, the unit of measurement. The unit of measurement varies not only from country to country, but also from item to item. Even within the same group of articles and commodities, we find that the things are being measured in ways that do not give any sense of transparency in the system. In that sense, this move to bring about the eight-digit system may be helpful. I am not very sure because through practice only, we learn whether this particular sort of legislation is going to help us or not.

I fully agree with my esteemed colleague that had it been given to the Standing Committee maybe for 10 or 15 days or for whatever little time possible, they would have applied their mind in a better way rather than bringing the Bill on the same day and asking us to discuss the Bill on the same day. You are passing the Bill on the same day as if it is a very insignificant piece of legislation. Customs is a very important area in the matter of our revenue generation. Although it does not involve any change of tariff but classification, reclassification, misclassification, six-digit to eight-digit nomenclature, harmonising, integrating to the international system, different units of measurement, yet bringing about uniformity is, of course, a welcome measure. I have stated that in the beginning. To ensure simplicity is a welcome move. Under certain compulsions, we move to integrate a system. We must move forward. But there are some problems specific to India. I have mentioned about the mindset of some of our importers and exporters. I have made a reference to the irregularities being indulged in the matter of invoicing. We are suffering as a result of our joining the WTO. We have been pressurised. Being primarily an agricultural country with more than 75 per cent of the people engaged in agricultural activities, the removal of the quantitative restrictions is such that a large measure agri products will come. What we call ‘milk products’, they would give it a different name. So many related things are to be looked into. I think, that even after what has been brought forward, there will still be areas which need to be examined further. I am not elaborating it. But I find from a first look at the things that there have been areas which have been considered by certain other Committees. I still think that this piece of legislation should go to the concerned Committee. Maybe they may be asked to submit their report within 10, 15 or 20 days or as early as possible. But it would be in the fitness of things that such an important Bill should not be passed in a hurry.

It should not have been promulgated through an Ordinance just 27 days before the beginning of the Session. Once again, I caution this Government that in such a cavalier manner, such important things should not be taken up. This is a complex area. In such areas they should step in very cautiously and the collective wisdom of the Committee would have been more helpful.

I am not opposing the Bill because six-digit to eight-digit nomenclature will be helpful. It will add to the transparency, bring about uniformity and simplify things. It is a welcome move. As a part of our integration, we have a compulsion to do this. But still, I think, there are many related areas which could have been taken care of in a better way had it been referred to the Standing Committee. So, still I urge upon the Government to let it go to the Standing Committee and wait for a few days. Before the end of the Session, if the hon. Minister so likes, he can again bring it and get it passed.

   

SHRI PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI (DEORIA): Mr. Deputy-Speaker Sir, I rise to support the Customs Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 2003.

This Bill is mainly to amend the Customs Traffic Act 1975. It is a consequential Bill. It is consequent to certain factors and consequent to certain actions already accepted and taken by certain Departments of the Government of India. So, the compulsions were of a consequential nature.

There is some merit in what Shri Rupchand Pal and Shri Dasmunsi have said that perhaps the urgency was not of such a nature that we could not have referred it to a committee to consider it more. But I feel that the Bill is of such nature and all of us have worked in the committees where the nitty-gritty details are required. The committees are also in equal pressure. Sometimes very few Members are present where the nitty-gritty is required to be considered, and when it is considered, they too have roughly the same kind of time and resources available to them. Therefore, ultimately, it falls on the Parliament to consider it and to give it a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

With regard to the concept why an Ordinance was brought and the Parliament was bypassed again and again, I would say that I do not agree with that kind of concept because there is no way to bypass the Parliament. Whether you pass an Ordinance or you do not pass it, the Bill has to come before the Parliament. It has to be considered by the Parliament. So, in such conclusion that this was being presented to the Parliament as a fait accompli and the Parliament was in some kind of a pressure to definitely pass it, I would consider it a bit misplaced because the Bill has to come to the Parliament. The only thing that can be in question is how urgent it is or how necessary it is that you must pass an Ordinance and thereafter you bring it before the Parliament. These are the points that can be discussed. But anybody thinking that this could be an effort to bypass the Parliament would be misplaced.

Also, there is this statement that we are bending in front of the WTO to meet this requirement. Indeed it is time that we became proactive in this subject and not only respond to the requirements of the WTO. This is one of the cases wherein eight-digit standardisation is something that we, ourselves, must ask for. The number of items has increased. A question is also asked whether this is the final thing and there will be some additions or subtractions and so on. It is not at all the final thing. It keeps on getting updated, increased, included and so on as the items increase. And as the content and the scope of international trade increases, and our platform with the national trade comes up, this will keep on undergoing a certain amount of change. But, those are accounting changes. What we are talking of and what we are concerned with correcting here and passing here is the basis that the following basis must be there for these changes. We must have a look at it and it is the job of the Standing Committee to look at the various specific nitty-gritties of the whole thing. But, the Parliament should be, and we are concerned with the basis of change. That basis of change has been extremely well articulated in the report which all of us have read. One or two things that I do want to read is that:

"This is based on harmonised system of nomenclature developed by Department of Revenue in consultation with Department of Commerce, Ministries dealing with industry and trade-related matters as well as industry, associations and experts."

 So, it is inter-disciplinary. It is not as if it is of one Department. To harmonise it, to standardise it and then to make it a modern thing based on which we can progress in the international trade of customs, and customs’ scope is going to increase every day. That is the main object of this Bill.

Now, the main object of this graduation from six digit to eight digit is almost akin to adding two to the telephone numbers. You are increasing the number of digits to be able to increase the scope and span of the items. We have added two because more numbers are likely to be coming and you want to get into another set of this thing.

Now, the main objective of expansion, of code is to furnish the rate of customs duty and the improbability of the commodities’ coherent classification. It is a part of ongoing effort to simplify import procedures and documentation. But the basic point that I wish to make is that this Bill is really all about simplifying the procedures and the documentation. We are getting modern methods to be able to do so, but, at the same time, we must have the backing of this Parliament to be able to carry out those changes.

Now, most of the points have been covered by speakers who spoke before me. The standardisation, the requirement of increased foreign trade, the requirement of opening up the span and the requirement of basically this harmonised system is the basic requirement of this Bill.

Therefore, from the point of view of the Government, there is sufficient urgency and that is why, this Ordinance was brought. This is as urgent as that. I can see why the urgency was there because it was inter-disciplinary, inter-departmental, and certain Departments had already moved to eight-digit harmonised code. It was very difficult to interact with those Departments unless this Bill was passed. Therefore, to remove that lacuna, there was an Ordinance placed here.

Now, the Bill has been considered. I agree that if time were to be allotted in proportion to the number of pages that are contained in the Bill, it would appear not to have given enough time to the Members to consider it. But, as long as we have got the principles correct and the urgency requirement correct, I think, there is every case for this Parliament and for us to pass this Bill without any further problem.

   

SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (SIVAGANGA): Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to show that by way of bringing this Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill, 2003, the customs tariff is madestatus quo.

The hon. Finance Minister, during his Budget speech, has said:

"The economy has not only weathered the removal of quantitative restrictions on imports and the reduction in customs duty rates but has responded to improving its competitiveness and demonstrating the inherent strength of its external balance of payments. "

 This was the appreciation, which the hon. Finance Minister, has made during his Budget speech.

There is another side of the coin, and that is the tears of the common man, the poor people. About 70 per cent of the population, who are living in the rural areas, backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were butchered by way of customs duty which is now coming again and again in Parliament just as if there are only digital changes and nothing more than that.

I would like to draw the attention of the Government that a military trained person has come forward with the Budget for the first time. He may not know about the rural people. He may not know about the backward classes, Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. But there are two other Ministers of State, who come not from Raja’s family but from the family of poor people. I hope, they have no power in telling that the customs tariff is again killing the common man and the rural people. I will show how it happens. Now, the customs tariff amendment is the obligation of WTO. We have to make laws and report it to WTO. That is our obligation. That obligation has to be fulfilled. Otherwise, we will be taken to task when we go in for any further discussion. Article 22 says:

"National legislation:

Each member shall ensure not later than the date of application of the provisions of this Agreement for it, the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of this Agreement. "  

 This obligation is now fulfilled by way of passing this Bill. But at the same time, we have got a right to have the protection of the domestic industry if there is any injury caused. Article VI of GATT says:

"Unless their effect is to come or threaten material injury to an established domestic industry or to ‘retard materially’ the establishment of a domestic industry, ‘threat’ of injury, serious injury …. "

 These are all qualifications, which can make the Government to sit along with other Governments and see that our people are protected.

I would like to know whether the Government of this day has done it or not. No, they have not done it. They want to repeatedly kill the farmers. They want to make them jobless. They want to make them as people with less purchasing power. They want to make them live on theannadaan which is going to be given to only a quarter of the BPL people. Even though the rest of the people may be having one acre of land or five acres of land or even 20 acres of land, they will not be classified under BPL, but at the same time, they will be termed as people living below the poverty line. Such is the situation of farmers and the people living in the rural areas. In such a way, ordinary widows, handicapped people, blind people and disabled people are living upon dairy food. They are living upon the corns. They are living upon the cattle. What is the customs duty that they are going to impose upon the multinational companies who are going to dump their milk and cream here? They are going to impose only 30 per cent duty upon them. The Backward Class, the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe people are living upon dairy products, birds’ eggs, natural honey and everything. They are charged only 30 per cent duty. But a customs duty of 60 per cent is imposed upon skimmed milk and milk food for babies because they are coming from organised people, from multinational companies. They are the products of Nestle. They can lobby the Government and bring up the customs duty to 60 per cent. But the poor people, the farmers, who voted for this Parliament, are just suffering with 30 per cent because their milk is not going to be sold in the market. The reason is, foreign milk is coming here. The customs duty on wholesome milk and milk for babies is 30 per cent because the poor people are producing and bringing it.

In the same way, let us take meat. Let us see how the ordinary people, the cattle rearers, that is, the Yadavas, are living upon meat. What is the production of their meat? Meat from foreign countries is going to be charged only at the rate of 30 per cent. Boneless hands, shoulders and cuts thereof are charged 30 per cent because they do not eat these types of things with bone. Meat of goats, sheep, tongues, livers and all other waste materials from the Western countries are going to be dumped here for 30 per cent. It is 30 per cent on poultry, either fresh or chilled, but not cut in pieces. A duty of 100 per cent is imposed on fresh or chilled cuts and offal. A duty of 30 per cent is imposed on frog legs waste. A duty of 30 per cent is imposed on reptiles, including snakes and turtles. These are all banned here under the Wild Life Protection Act. The people, who cannot even export it from here, are going to import it. They are allowed with a 30 per cent duty.

In the same way, a 30 per cent duty on the ivory powder and its waste is imposed. We call them narikuravas, but they are gypsies. These people and the Scheduled Caste people live on hooves, claws, nails and beaks of birds. A duty of 30 per cent is imposed on them. Again, 30 per cent duty is imposed on buffalo horns. The duty on tortoise-shell is 30 per cent to 25 per cent. The duty on coral and similar materials unworkable is reduced, even in the Budget, to less than 30 per cent.

The cut flower market of the ordinary people who are having gardens is down because only 30 per cent customs duty is charged for the imported cut flowers. I can prove each and everything. But at the same time, I want to give one example to show how the people are killed. Soyabean is one of the agricultural products that the people produce. As a bean seed, they are charging only 30 to 20 per cent. When they are imported here, they are converting it into crude oil, refine it, re-pack it and then they are selling it here at the highest rate. Now, an excise duty of eight per cent is imposed. Within a day, its price has been increased by Rs.60 per tin more. The consumers have to pay Rs.60 more. In the same way, I can show you that we are depending upon soyabean oil. Our consumption is about 10 million tonnes every year. Out of this, 55 per cent of the requirement is met by importing. Why? It is because the agriculturists are not given the proper price. They were asked to go away from sowing soyabean. None of the oilseeds are getting the proper price in the market.

Our agriculturists are committing suicide but we are allowing the foreigners to dump all their materials here in our markets. Malaysia and other countries are dumping their products into India. We are converting it into oil and selling to our own people who have no purchasing power. This is the situation we are now facing.

In the same way, our people engaged in fishing activities are also harassed. For fish, molasses and other aquatic invertebrates, the customs duty is only 20 per cent. So far as prawns are concerned, it is 30 per cent. Here, we are not allowed to have our own prawns because they are prohibited for environmental reasons. For jellyfish and other things also, it is only 30 per cent. Our local fishermen are jobless because they do not have any protection in the seashores and offshore areas. When they go for fishing, they are thrown away because multinationals are coming in with their mechanised boats and all that. They cannot even go for fishing because they are prohibited by the Wildlife Act and such other laws, but when it comes to imports, they are being allowed with 30 per cent customs duty.

When it comes to Indian cotton, it attracts a duty of ten per cent and there is a duty of 20 per cent on cotton yarn. Most of the cotton growers are committing suicide every day. We are reading in the newspapers about peasants from Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu committing suicide. When import of cotton is allowed with ten per cent customs duty, how can they survive? This is how ordinary people who are dependent upon cotton farming for their livelihood are killed.

By simply allowing the import duty to come down to the level of 30 per cent and having a three-tier system, they want to show as if everything is done properly. I would like to state that 210 per cent is the duty imposed for spirits such as whiskey, rum and vodka. This is because they are well organised and can lobby with the bureaucrats, Ministers and other people concerned. There is a 170 per cent duty for other alcoholic preparations; 60 per cent for milk and cream, and cane sugar and beet sugar; 50 per cent for bitumen, coal and wheat; 45 per cent for sweet biscuits; and 40 per cent for butter and cheese. The 35 per cent duty is on meat, fish, dairy products, flowers, vegetables, dying and tanning substances, soyabean, groundnut oil, olive oil, sugar, confectionery, tobacco preparations, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers, cosmetics and soaps. The duty on these items could be reduced to 35 per cent because they are lobbying.

I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members of Parliament to the fact that agriculturists do not have a lobby. They are not well organised but we the people who have got elected by them have to lobby for them. We have to see that the customs duty for rice and agricultural products and for fishing-related products should be upgraded. It should come at least to the level of duty on alcohol. It is only then that agriculturists can sow their own seeds, come out with their produce and sell them in the local market. America is giving protection for agriculturists; the UK and the European countries are giving pension to agriculturists, but we are allowing our people to starve. At the same time, products from America, European countries and other countries are being dumped here because there is no lobby for agriculturists. So, about 90 per cent of the people are now dying. They have lost all their purchasing power.

The poor people engaged in fishing do not have any lobby. They can agitate and go on hunger strike but nothing would happen in this country. Why is the customs duty not raised for the benefit of these people? The hon. Minister might say that the WTO would not allow it. The WTO would allow it if you apply the same clauses that I read earlier. If you do that, you can increase the customs duty and allow people to engage properly in agriculture. What has the Budget given to the people engaged in agriculture? They are asked to pay four per cent interest on loans given to them.

Is any financial help given to the agriculturists? The answer is `no’. But it is given to the industrialists who are not asking for any money and who are not worried about the share market. They are allowed to have all these things in their hands. The interest is reduced on the entire small deposits like Savings Bank Accounts etc., and the interest on the poor labourers’ Provident Fund is also reduced by one per cent.

Sir, agriculturists are paying 13 per cent to 18 per cent for their agricultural loans, mid-term loans, short-term loans and long-term loans. They are indebted. Nobody bothers about them. When we are shouting, when we are in the debate and when we are talking about the agricultural problems, Members are hearing about it and going out. But what is the position? Why the customs duty is not increased for those materials? We are doing injustice to the people. We are doing injustice to the common men who have voted for us. People who have not voted for us are getting all the benefits by way of customs duty.

               

डॉ. रघुवंश प्रसाद सिंह (वैशाली):उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, सीमा-शुल्क टैरिफ (संशोधन) विधेयक पर सभी माननीय सदस्यों ने अपनी सहमति ज़ाहिर की है जिसमें ६-अंकीय वर्गीकरण के स्थान पर ८-अंकीय वर्गीकरण का प्रस्ताव है। इसे कम्प्यूटराइज करने के लिये देश और दुनिया में इंटरनेशनल ट्रेड में एकरूपता रहने से सहूलियत होगी और यह ठीक बात भी है। मैंने देखा है कि जनरल रेट्स ३५ प्रतिशत था जिसे घटाकर ३० प्रतिशत कर दिया गया है। सबसे पहले चैप्टर में ‘गधा’पर शुल्क २० परसेंट कर दिया गया है।

श्री प्रकाश परांजपे (ठाणे): आप आधे बिहार से ले लें, बाहर से नहीं मंगाने पड़ेंगे।

उपाध्यक्ष महोदय : आप चेयर की तरफ देखकर बोलिये।

डॉ. रघुवंश प्रसाद सिंह : उपाध्यक्ष महोदय, हमारे देश में कृषि उत्पाद अधिक है। उस पर सीमा-शुल्क अधिक रहे, यहां आने में उसका दाम बढ़ जाये। इससे सरकार को आमदनी अधिक होगी और खेती उद्योग को सुरक्षा मिलेगी। इसलिये यह प्रतिशत बढ़ जाना चाहिये। जिन चीजों की यहां कमी है,,उस पर संतुलित रेट होना चाहिये जिससे यहां उपभोक्ता को कस्टम डयूटी कम लगे। लेकिन कभी रेट १४-क्लास का होता है, कभी १५-क्लास का होता है और कभी ३५ से ३० कर दिया। माननीय मंत्री जी बताने का कष्ट करें कि इस साल वर्ष २००२-०३ में जो टारगैट था, वह कितना है? मुझे मालूम है कि इस बार २० परसेंट रेवेन्यू में कमी का अनुमान है। इसे लागू करने में करप्शन भी है। इस २० परसेंट रेवेन्यू लॉस का क्या कारण है? सरकार इसमें सुधार लाने के लिये क्या कार्यवाही कर रही है? मेरे ख्याल से बिना विचार किये ही यह ३५ प्रतिशत से ३० प्रतिशत किया गया है। इसमें संतुलित रेट होना चाहिये था।

उपाध्यक्ष महोदय,किसान दूध का उत्पादन करता है लेकिन उसे दूध का उचित मूल्य नहीं मिलता है। यदि विदेशों से आने वाले दूध पर कस्टम डयूटी कम करेंगे तो ज्यादा दूध आ जायेगा और डम्िंपग हो जायेगा। उस समय दुग्ध उत्पादक किसान का क्या होगा? सरकार ने जो रेट तय किया है, यह सुविचारणीय नहीं है, इसे सुविचारणीय केरना चाहिये।

जितनी आइटम, जितनी मोटी किताब और सामान सब उसमें लिखा हुआ है - मुर्गी की टांग विदेशों में लोग नहीं खाते क्योंकि उसमें ज्यादा फैट होता है। बाकी सारी मुर्गी का मांस खा लेते हैं, लेकिन मुर्गी की टांग फ्रिज में रखी रहती है। उस पर कस्टम डयूटी कम कर दी तो सब मुर्गी की टांग बाहर से यहां आ जाएगी। इससे यहां के मुर्गी-पालक किसानों का क्या होगा?

   

15.45 hrs. (Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav in the Chair) अगर ये रेट बढ़ा देंगे तो वे कहेंगे कि फालतू रखी हुई है फ्रिज में, और मुफ्त में यहां भेज देंगे। फिर कैसे कंपीटीशन होगा? डब्लू.टी.ओ. से सुरक्षा का पर्याप्त इंतज़ाम होना चाहिए। यही एक तरीका है। यहां का जो उत्पादित सामान है जिसका हमारे देश में बाहुल्य है, उस पर कस्टम डयूटी ज्यादा कर देनी चाहिए। डब्लू.टी.ओ. के दबाव में विदेश वाले कस्टम डयूटी कम कर रहे हैं तो इन्होंने फार्मूला रखा है कि हम भी उसके कंपीटीशन में कस्टम डयूटी कम कर दें। फिर जो यहां उत्पादित कृषि-जन्य पदार्थ हैं, उनका संरक्षण कैसे होगा, लघु उद्योगों का संरक्षण कैसे होगा? इसलिए यह कस्टम की दर सुविचारित नहीं लगती। इस पर एक्सपर्ट लोगों को विचार करना चाहिए और आइटमवाइज़ - किस आइटम पर कितनी दर लगायी जाए, वह तय करना चाहिए। ये फार्मूला चलाते हैं कि ३५ परसेंट से घटाकर ३० परसेंट कर दो। पहले ३५ परसेंट था और अब ३० पर आ गए हैं। किसी आइटम पर ५ परसेंट है, किसी पर १५ परसेंट तो किसी पर २५ परसेंट है। लेकिन ज्यादातर पर ३० परसेंट हमने देखा है। ऐसा लचर फार्मूला चलने से, डब्लू.टी.ओ. के दबाव में, हमारी पूरी आशंका है कि जो हमारे यहां उत्पादित सामान अधिक मात्रा में है, जब विदेश से यहां आ जाएगा तो उसकी हमारे यहां डंपिंग होगी और डंपिंग होने से किसानों का भारी अहित होगा। इसलिए इनके राज में हमें लगता है कि किसानों का हित होने वाला नहीं है। इसमें लॉबी भी काम कर रही है। शुरू में संकेत हो गया था कि कस्टम डयूटी घटेगी जिससे सारे व्यापारी लोग सजग हो गए। आप सहार हवाई अड्डा देखिये, वहां भ्रष्टाचार का बोलबाला है। चाहे हवाई अड्डा हो या बंदरगाह हो, जहां विदेशों से सामान आता है, वहां कस्टम अधिकारी की पोस्ट बिकती है। जो ज्यादा पैसा देगा, उसी अधिकारी की नियुक्ति वहां होती है। इस कारण २० प्रतिशत देश की आमदनी हमारे टार्गैट से कम होती है। भ्रष्टाचार ही इसका एकमात्र कारण है।

हमारी पहली आशंका है कि जो किसान द्वारा उत्पादित सामान है, उसकी सुरक्षा इससे नहीं होगी। दूसरा, जो टार्गैट हमारा था कस्टम से आमदनी का, उसका २० प्रतिशत नुकसान हो रहा है। तीसरे, जो करप्शन हवाई अड्डों और बंदरगाहों पर होता है, जहां भ्रष्ट अधिकारी सीटें खरीदकर पोस्िंटग पा लेते हैं, इन तीनों मामलों में सरकार का क्या उत्तर है, वह स्पष्ट करें। विदेश से जो शराब आती है, उस पर सरकार ने कस्टम डयूटी कम कर दी। क्या सरकार के पास इसका कोई जवाब है? …( व्यवधान)आम बाहर से आएगा। इस तरह तो जो यहां का सामान है, जो हम दुनिया में भेजते हैं, उस पर क्यों कस्टम डयूटी कम कर रहे हैं? विदेश से शराब आएगी - क्या आपके यहां विदेशी लोग ज्यादा हैं? क्यों उसकी कस्टम डयूटी कम की? इससे सरकार को भी घाटा होगा। मान लीजिए कोई बड़ा भारी पीने का अभ्यासी है तो वह ज्यादा दाम पर खरीदे। इससे सरकार की भी आमदनी बढ़ेगी। लेकिन ये कौन से गणितज्ञ का अर्थशास्त्र चलाते हैं? यशवंत सिन्हा जी वित्त मंत्रालय से चले गए लेकिन उनका अर्थशास्त्र अभी सरकार को छोड़ नहीं रहा है।

सभापति महोदय, इन सभी सवालों पर मंत्री जी स्थिति स्पष्ट करें, तभी हम समर्थन करेंगे। यह विधेयक इतना मोटा है कि इसे पढ़ने में ही बहुत समय लग जाता है। यह बहुत खतरनाक स्थिति है। श्री प्रियरंजन दासमुंशी जी एवं अन्य माननीय सदस्यों ने इस विधेयक को सुविचारित करने के बाद ही पास करने की जो बात कही है, मैं उससे सहमत हूं। मैं भी कहना चाहता हूं कि इस बारे में जल्दबाजी में आर्डिनेंस कर दिया गया है। हर आइटम पर विश्लेषण कर के इसे लाना चाहिए था। कौन सी बात देश के हित में होगी, किस बाद से देश और प्रदेश का अहित होगा, इन सभी सवालों पर अच्छी तरह विचार-विमर्श कर के इस विधेयक को सदन में पारित कराने हेतु लाना चाहिए था, लेकिन सरकार ने ऐसा नहीं किया है और सरकार ने जल्दबाजी में इसे आर्डीनेंस के रूप में लागू कर दिया और अब इस विधेयक को पारित कराना चाहती है।

सभापति महोदय, सरकार हमें बताए कि १ फरवरी से आर्डीनेंस लागू करने के बाद इससे देश में क्या प्रभाव पड़ा है ? रेट में घट-बढ़ करने से आमदनी घटी है या बढ़ी है या उद्योग पर, कृषि पर कोई सकारात्मक प्रभाव पड़ा है, क्या आपने उसकी समीक्षा की है, यदि की है, तो सदन को बताएं कि आप ठीक रास्ते पर हैं या नहीं। इससे देश के लोगों के हितों का संरक्षण नहीं हो रहा है, इससे देश का अहित हो रहा है, देश के लोग सशंकित हैं और देख रहे हैं कि उनके हितों का संरक्षण कैसे होगा, देश के लघु उद्योगों में उत्पादित सामान से देश का हित कैसे होगा, इस बारे में जब तक सरकार साफ तौर से नहीं बताएगी, तब तक हम इस विधेयक को पास नहीं होने देंगे। इस विधेयक के पास होने में हम बाधा उत्पन्न करेंगे।

श्री शीशराम सिंह रवि (बिजनौर):माननीय सभापति जी, सीमा-शुल्क टैरिफ (संशोधन) विधेयक, २००३ और सीमा-शुल्क टैरिफ अधनियम, १९७५ में और संशोधन करने वाले विधेयक के पक्ष में बोलने के लिए मैं खड़ा हुआ हूं। यह बहुत ही अच्छा विधेयक है। मेरे से पूर्व वक्ताओं में श्री दासमुंशी जी और कई अन्य माननीय सदस्यों ने यहां प्रस्ताव रखा कि इसे जल्दबाजी में प्रस्तुत किया गया है और फरवरी में ही इस बारे में आर्डीनेंस निकाला गया है, यह नहीं होना चाहिए था और पूछा गया है कि ऐसी क्या जल्दी थी और कहा गया कि इसे संसदीय स्थाई समति को विचार हेतु भेजना चाहिए था।

महोदय, मैं यहां इतना जरूर कहना चाहता हूं कि यह बहुत आवश्यक था। इसलिए इसे आर्डीनेंस के रूप में लागू करना पड़ा और अब सदन में विधेयक पारित करने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है। संसदीय स्थाई समति में भेजने से इसमें विलम्ब होता क्योंकि ....... * संसदीय स्थायी समतियों में बहुत समय पर इसकी वभिन्न धाराओं पर विचार-विमर्श करने में समय लग जाना, मुख्य कारण है, जिससे विधेयकों को पारित करने हेतु सदन में उपस्थित करने में विलम्ब हो जाता है। इसलिए सरकार का एक ही उद्देश्य है कि जो जिन्स या वस्तुएं हैं, उनको एक कैटेगरी में लाकर कंप्यूट्रीकृत करना और उसमें सरकार …( व्यवधान)

SHRI K. FRANCIS GEORGE (IDUKKI): Mr. Chairman, Sir, the hon. Member is saying about the Members of the Standing Committees. … (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please take your seat.

श्री शीशराम सिंह रवि :सभापति जी, मैं यह बताना चाहता हूं कि यह बहुत आवश्यक था इसलिए इस बारे में आर्डीनेंस लाना पड़ा तथा इसे संसदीय समति में भेजने से इसे पारित कराने में बहुत समय लग जाता। इसे केवल कंप्यूटर में फीड करने हेतु लाया गया है ताकि पूरे देश में और दुनिया में यह जानकारी जा सके और एक-दूसरे से संपर्क स्थापित करने में जो दिक्कतें आ रही थीं वे दूर हो सकें। जो नई पद्धतियां लागू हुई हैं उनमें भी इस विधेयक के पारित होने से सहायता मिलेगी और जो अनेक मदों में हेरा-फेरी होती थी वह रुकेगी और उनके नाम बदले गए हैं, उनको ठीक किया गया है। …( व्यवधान)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not allowing you. Please take your seats.

… (Interruptions)

* Not Recorded             MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Rajo Singh, please take your seat.

डॉ.महेन्द्र सिंह पाल (नैनीताल) : सभापति महोदय, माननीय सदस्य, …( व्यवधान)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Mahendra Singh Pal, please take your seat.

श्री राजो सिंह (बेगूसराय):सभापति जी, माननीय सदस्य जो बोल रहे हैं, …( व्यवधान)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing should go on record.

(Interruptions) …* श्री शीशराम सिंह रवि :माननीय अध्यक्ष जी, देश में जो अनेक नई पद्धतियां शुरू हुई हैं और जो व्यवस्थाएं हैं, उनमें परिवर्तित करने के लिए इस विधेयक को पारित करने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है और इस विधेयक के पारित होने से सीमा-शुल्क बढ़ेगा और…( व्यवधान)

श्री राजो सिंह : सभापति जी, …( व्यवधान)

सभापति महोदय : आपका रिकॉर्ड पर कुछ नहीं जा रहा है।

...( व्यवधान)* ..

सभापति महोदय : आप आसन की अनुमति के बिना खड़े हो जाते हैं, आपकी कोई बात प्रोसिडिंग में नहीं आएगी।

… (Interruptions)PROF. A.K. PREMAJAM (BADAGARA): That should not be the criteria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please take your seat.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI K. FRANCIS GEORGE : That Members remarks should be removed from the records. How can he make such a statement? It should be removed from the records. It is a shame. A Member of this House is saying that Members are not attending the Standing Committee, so the Bills should not be sent to the Standing Committees. How can a Member say that? How can a Member make such a statement? It should be removed from the records.

* Not Recorded         सभापति महोदय : स्टैंडिंग कमेटी के मेम्बर्स के बारे में जो माननीय सदस्य द्वारा कहा गया है, वह प्रोसिडिंग का पार्ट नहीं बनेगा।

…( व्यवधान)PROF. A.K. PREMAJAM : How can a Member say like that?

… (Interruptions)

सभापति महोदय : उसे प्रोसिडिंग से निकाल दिया है, अब आप बैठ जाइए।

…( व्यवधान)श्री शीशराम सिंह रवि :महोदय, इस प्रकार से घड़ियां और कई अन्य प्रकार की वस्तुओं को एकरूपता में लाने के लिए इस विधेयक को यहां लाया गया है और यह पहली फरवरी से लागू किया गया है। मैं समझता हूं कि यह पूरे देश और सब विभागों से जुड़ा हुआ विधेयक है, इसे पास किया जाना अतिआवश्यक है। मैं इस बिल का समर्थन करता हूं।

       

SHRI BIKRAM KESHARI DEO (KALAHANDI): Mr. Chairman, Sir. I rise to support the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill 2003. Sir, India today is in the WTO regime, and global trade has to be followed, and today I rise to speak, Sir.

… (Interruptions) The idea of this Amendment Bill is not to deal with the regulation or de-regulation of customs duty to be imposed on imports, the main objective of the Bill is that six-digit classification code has to be made into eight-digit classification code. The reason is to simplify and to do away with trade problems which are being faced by this six-digit classification, and they are, now, made into this Bill which envisages to make it an eight-digit classification so that the import and export procedures are further simplified. Besides, it also tries to harmonise the system of nomenclature of a particular product. Sir, this has been decided by the Department of Revenue and Department of Commerce. They have sat together and they have thought of processes and procedures to simplify trade.

I would like to ask the Congress Party here that in 1993 when the WTO Agreement was signed, what action had the Congress Government taken then? Sir, after the NDA Government has come to power, we have made trade-related legislations like plant varieties, like the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, etc. A lot of legislations in relevance with WTO has been brought.

SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN : In 1995, WTO Agreement made this obligation, but that was not a duty in 1991.

SHRI BIKRAM KESHARI DEO : You did not say. Today, the Congress Party also is saying that the agriculturists are committing suicide. It is because of whom? It is because of the Congress Party. When the WTO was signed in 1993, the Agreement on agriculture was left blank and up till today you have not been able to resolve.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI A.C. JOS (TRICHUR): They have been in power for the past four years. Now, you are in power for the past four years. They can change this. They can change and amend this. Why don’t you change it?

SHRI BIKRAM KESHARI DEO : We have taken a lot of steps to save the agriculturists. We have provided crop loans, we have givenKisan Credit Cards. We are trying to protect the interest of the farmers.

16.00 hrs. If the farmers are committing suicide, it is not because of our four-year rule, but it is because of 42-year misrule of the Congress Government and the Members sitting on that side.

The main objective of the Bill is expansion of the code for harmonising the nomenclature: for example, gold. If you take the main product ‘gold’, there are so many by-products, like gold-dust, gold-ash etc. There has been a uniform duty on all these products. The main point of this Bill is to get harmony between the main product and its by-products. Suppose, jewellery work is going on or lapidary work is going on, there is a lot of diamond dust, and that same diamond dust has got a value. However, the customs duty is same on both the main product as well as its by-products because this diamond dust can be used for making bore-wells and rigs.

This Bill does not enhance or the lower the customs duty and it mainly tries to harmonise it. It is basically simplifying the procedures of trade with other countries because we have entered the WTO regime. There was a time when we had to mortgage gold, but today, I am proud to say that we have got US $ 75 billion in foreign exchange reserves. It is because of the progressive trade policy being pursued by the NDA. Thank you.

   

श्री चन्द्रकांत खैरे (औरंगाबाद, महाराष्ट्र) : सभापति महोदय, इस विधेयक को सपोर्ट देने के लिए मैं खड़ा हुआ हूं। इस सीमाशुल्क टैरिफ (संशोधन) विधेयक, २००३ का मैं शिवसेना की तरफ से समर्थन तो कर रहा हूं, पर वास्तव में इस विधेयक में सीमाशुल्क की विद्यमान दरों से परिवर्तन का प्रस्ताव नहीं है।

विधेयक में बताया गया है कि व्यापार और उद्योग की ओर से, सभी व्यापार सम्बन्धी संव्यवहारों के लिए अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय और घरेलू व्यापार को सुकर बनाने हेतु उपयोग में लाए जाने के लिए नामपद्धति की अंतर्राष्ट्रीय रूप से अंगीकृत समन्वित प्रणाली पर आधारित सामान्य वस्तु वर्गीकरण संहिता को अंगीकार करने की मांग की गई है। वैसे तो आठ अंकों का मानकीकरण, वर्गीकरण या संहिता को एक अप्रैल, २००२ से अंगीकार किया है। उसके पहले से छ: अंक वर्गीकरण प्रणाली से इसका बदल हो रहा है। उक्त संहिता के विस्तार का मुख्य उद्देश्य सीमाशुल्क की दरें और उक्त वर्गीकरण के संगत वस्तुओं के आयात क्षमता प्रदान करने के लिए है।

मैं आपको बताऊं कि बाहर से जो वस्तुएं हमारे देश में आने वाली हैं, उस बारे में अन्य माननीय सदस्यों ने अपने विचार यहां रखे हैं। अगर नार्वे का दूध यहां आ गया तो दुग्ध उत्पादक किसानों को उससे नुकसान होगा, क्योंकि वह दूध सात रुपये प्रतिलीटर होगा, हम ऐसा मानकर चलते हैं। मुम्बई में तो एक बार वह पहुंच गया था तो फिर १२, १३ या १४ रुपये प्रतिलीटर कोई यहां के किसानों का दूध नहीं लेगा।श्री प्रियरंजन दासमुंशी: लगाना चाहिए कि नहीं लगाना चाहिए?

श्री चन्द्रकांत खैरे : नहीं लगाया, आगे मैं यही बोलने वाला हूं। इसलिए ज्यादा सीमाशुल्क लगाना चाहिए। अगर यहां सात रुपये लीटर दूध आ गया तो हमारा मध्यम वर्ग का कंज्यूमर यह सोचेगा कि चलो सात रुपये वाला दूध ले लो। लेकिन उससे यहां के दुग्ध उत्पादक का क्या होगा। अभी वह १२ और १३ रुपये लीटर दूध बेच सकता है, फिर उसे कोई नहीं लेगा। फिर गाय, भैंस या जानवर किसानों को बेचने पड़ेंगे या उन्हें कसाई के पास जाना पड़ेगा और किसानों का बहुत बुरा हाल हो जायेगा, अनेक तकलीफें होंगी।

मैं आपको बताना चाहता हूं कि सरकार ने पिछले साल, जो ओल्ड व्हीकल्स बाहर से हमारे देश में आने वालें थे, उनको यहां आने से रोका था। हमारे स्पीकर मनोहर जोशी जी तब मंत्री थे, उनके पीरियड में उसे रोका गया था। इसलिए रोका गया था, क्योंकि यहां के ऑटो इंडस्ट्री ने उनका एक सिम्पोजियम रखा था।

अगर हमारी इंडस्ट्री बन करनी है तो उनके ओल्ड और नये व्हीकल्स को आने दो। हमारे यहां जो भी आटो इंडस्ट्री है। उदाहरण के लिए हमारे यहां बजाज इंडस्ट्री है जिसमें १० हजार लोग काम करते हैं। वह सारी इंडस्ट्री बंद होने वाली है। अगर जापान या चाइना के स्कूटर वगैरह १७ हजार रुपये में आने लगेंगे, तो यहां के स्कूटर, मोटरसाइकिल जो कि ३८ हजार रुपये से लेकर ४८ हजार रुपये में आती हैं, उनको कौन खरीदेगा ? इसलिए इंडस्ट्री वालों ने कहा कि यह नहीं होना चाहिए। मेरा कहना है कि आपको इम्पोर्ट डयूटी बढ़ानी चाहिए।

मैं यही कहूंगा कि आफिसर लैवल में डयूटी बढ़ाने घटाने में बहुत भ्रष्टाचार होता है। अभी जैसा रघुवंश जी ने बताया, वह ठीक है। आफिसर लैवल पर पोस्िंटग आदि का भी बड़ा झगड़ा होता है। इसको कंट्रोल करने के लिए सरकार को कुछ कदम उठाने चाहिए। मैं आपके माध्यम से मंत्री जी से कहना चाहता हूं कि जो भी फॉरेन मैटीरियल्स आने वाली हैं, उन पर कस्टम डयूटी ज्यादा लगनी चाहिए ताकि हमारे यहां के जो घरेलू उद्योग-धंधे हैं, स्माल स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज हैं, उनको इससे कुछ बढ़ावा मिल सकता है। अगर आप ऐसा नहीं करेंगे तो वह इंडस्ट्रीज खत्म हो जायेंगी।

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (SHRI GINGEE N. RAMACHANDRAN): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am very much thankful to the hon. Members who have expressed their concern over the hike in custom tariffs of some items, the WTO commitment and other related issues.

The Bill under discussion deals with computerisation and coding. The purpose behind bringing this Bill is to have a uniform system of coding instead of the present three modes being followed by different Departments. That is the only reason why we have promulgated this Ordinance.

I want to bring to the attention of this august House … (Interruptions)

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Why Ordinance? A normal Bill could have been brought. You explain why the Ordinance was considered necessary?

SHRI GINGEE N. RAMCHANDRAN: I want to bring to your knowledge that the Directorate of Foreign Trade in the Commerce Ministry, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Directorate of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics have recommended that there should be an uniform entry code for computing the actual quantities of imports, the type of goods, the heads under which they are imported. This code is issued by the Commerce Ministry for imports. They are following eight-digit codes; in Customs we are having six-digit codes; and some other agencies at international level are having ten-digit codes.

The main purpose behind this legislation is to bring uniformity in the methods of assessing the actual quantities of imports and the amount of money involved. In order to ensure that data entry is clear and transparent we are introducing computerisation. It is for that purpose only that we have issued this Ordinance, after consultation with the concerned Ministries that are handling trade, industry, imports and exports and related issues. It is in view of the obligations of the Commerce Ministry and the benefits that we are going to get that we have promulgated this Ordinance. We are bringing in a harmonised system of nomenclature also.

Hon. Member Shri Dasmunsi has already stated that through this classification in the First Schedule, we have given power to the Government to reschedule and give eight-digit codes.

If any new entry comes, it will also come under eight-digit code. That is the purpose for which we have brought this legislation for the approval of this august House.

Various hon. Members have expressed their concern about the import duty on the agricultural products and other related issues. But those issues are not related to this legislation. It is purely bringing about the common number code for all items which are covered for import.

Let me categorically bring to the knowledge of the hon. Members that there is no change in stock notes; there is no change in chapter notes; there is no change in sub-head. Nothing is changed in the items or classification in the book.

Sir, this Bill will also control and reduce the transaction cost. So far, the Ministry of Commerce is doing one type of code; our revenue people are adopting another type of code; and other people of various Ministries are following some other codes. Therefore, we want to have one code. This will reduce the transaction cost and also bring transparency in all other matters.

Sir, we have also introduced a measurement unit for knowing as to how much we are importing; what is the quantum of imported materials, etc. We have integrated all these things.

Everything will come into force from 1st April. The Ordinance was issued on the 1st February which is already in existence.

Sir, several hon. Members, while participating in the debate, mentioned about WTO. Let me make it very clear that we were not at all under any compulsion to bring this Ordinance. There is a clear understanding between the Ministries about the imported materials and calculating the real amount, as to how much we import.

It was recommended by the Ministry of Commerce. The reputed organisations including the World Customs Organisation have also recommended this. So, it is as per their recommendation that we have introduced this Bill.

Several hon. Members including Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh spoke about agriculturists and various other related issues. Similarly, Dr. Natchiappan made a mention about WTO, and some other imported customs items. Let me reiterate that such issues are not directly related to this. If they want, they can raise such issues, while participating in the debate on the General Budget. On the agricultural side, we have not hiked any items. Wherever necessary, the Government will take appropriate steps.

Sir, I want to categorically bring to the notice of the hon. Members that this Government is very transparent. I am proud to say that we have increased our revenue collection by 12 per cent as compared to what was in the previous year. So, the Government is very vigil and taking all possible steps to collect revenue without fail.

SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI : Sir, he is not replying on the main question.

SHRI GINGEE N. RAMACHANDRAN: Sir, Shri Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, Shri Rupchand pal, Shri Anadi Sahu, Shri Prakash Mani Tirpathi, Shri S. Natchiappan, Shri Sheesh Ram Singh Ravi, Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, Shri B.K. Deo and Shri Chandrakant Khaire have participated in this debate. They have expressed their concern as to what was the hurry in issuing this Ordinance. In this regard let me bring to the notice of this august House that this Ordinance was issued on the recommendation of several organisations, including Trade and Commerce Associations. The Ministry of Commerce had already recommended for the same. There is a need to facilitate the traders and importers. The World Customs Organisation had already recommended to take this measure immediately. Then only the people who are engaged in import business will be facilitated.

For this purpose we had issued this Ordinance.

With these words, I would request this augsut House to pass this Bill unanimously.

SHRI PRABODH PANDA (MIDNAPORE): Hon. Chairman, Sir, it is quite unfortunate that nothing has been answered by the hon. Minister regarding the questions raised in regard to this Bill. The hon. Members raised many questions.

Firstly, what was the hurry in issuing the Ordinance when there was no problem or complexity? Why did they not bring this Bill to this House afresh? Why was the Ordinance needed, that too just a few days before the commencement of the Budget Session?

Secondly, several hon. Members of this House raised the point of harmonisation of nomenclature. But all these things should have been discussed in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance At least the collective wisdom could be very useful for this important Bill. But, Sir, it is very unfortunate that even the Minister could not respond to this Bill properly.

I hope that in the coming days, the Government would think and consider all these important points which have been raised here in regard to the strategic customs tariff policy and other related issues.

So, I am not pressing my Resolution.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Is it the pleasure of the House that the Resolution moved by Shri Prabodh Panda be withdrawn?

The Resolution was, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That the Bill further to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1975, be taken into consideration."

  The motion was adopted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The House will not take up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.

           

Clause – 2 Insertion of new section 11A श्री राजो सिंह : मैं प्रस्ताव करता हूं :

पृष्ठ २, पंक्ति ९,-

" तीस" के स्थान पर " साठ" प्रतिस्थापितकिया जाए। (1) MR. CHAIRMAN : I shall now put the amendment to the vote of the House. The amendment was put and negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 2 was added to the Bill.

Clause – 3 Subtitution of new schedule for First Scheduleश्री राजो सिंह : मैं प्रस्ताव करता हूं :

पृष्ठ ३२, पंक्ति २८,-

" १०% " के स्थान पर " ४०% " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाए। (2) MR. CHAIRMAN: I shall now put the amendment to the vote of the House. The amendment was put and negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clause 3 was added to the Bill.

Clause 4 was added to the Bill.

Clause 1, the Enacting Formula and the Long Title were added to the Bill.

SHRI GINGEE N. RAMACHANDRAN: Sir, I beg to move:

"That the Bill be passed."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That the Bill be passed."

The motion was adopted.

__________