'Insurers are justified in refusing to deal with those who fail to pay premiums'

We stopped filing declarations or paying premiums in August 2010 against Standard Comprehensive Policy issued in September 2009 by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC). Now we want a fresh Policy but ECGC says that we must declare all shipments from August 2010 onwards and pay the premium but will not get risk cover for the same. Is ECGC right?
‘Utmost good faith’ is a basic tenet of any insurance policy, wherein an insurer agrees to pay an unspecified amount against a future uncertain occurrence, if the insured pays the agreed premium and makes truthful declarations. When you do not make declarations or pay premiums, the insurer can hold you to be in breach of faith, and refuse to deal any more with you or put down conditions for dealing with you. The insurer may also apprehend that premiums paid late intend to cover liabilities that have already arisen.

When we import goods under preferential/free trade agreements, is there any binding that valuation for Additional Customs Duty should also be done as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962?
Preferential/free trade agreements deal with basic customs duty (BCD) rates and for the purpose of BCD, valuation will be in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. For calculation of additional duties of customs, Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA 75) will come into play.

In a classification dispute, we are contending that ‘refrigerators’ cannot be compared with ‘chillers’ citing the technicalities as per the Indian Standards 3615:1967, which distinguishes the differences between the products. Is the department bound by any such justifications rather than depend on the Section Notes/ Chapter Notes of the CTA 75?
A standard specification is an explicit set of material and performance requirements for an item. Having determined that an item is based on the specifications, classification must be done according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes in the Tariff. The Supreme Court judgment, in the case of Carrier Aircon Ltd. [2006 (1999) ELT 577 (SC)] classifies chillers at 8415 of CTA 75.

Can we contest recovery of merchant overtime for examination of cargo at our export oriented unit on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hotel Asoka [2012 (276) ELT 433 (SC)], which implies that bonded warehouses fall within the definition of ‘customs area’?
The above judgment was rendered in the context of sale from duty free shops at the international airports but it has definitely introduced certain uncertainties in respect of in-bond sales in bonded warehouses also. While you can use the case law to your advantage, you may note that on ‘merchant overtime’ point there are conflicting judgments and the matter is with the Larger Bench [2009 (236) ELT 328 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. The Gujarat High Court has also admitted two appeals against Tribunal judgments on the same issue [2011 (265) ELT A116 (Guj.)] and [2011 (264) ELT A068 (Guj.)].

Business Standard invites readers’ SME queries related to excise, VAT and exim policy.
You can write to us at smechat@bsmail.in