Legislative and Regulatory Update

 

You now have the option of customizing your manupatra round-up .This means that you get updates on the areas of interest that you select .You may change your preferences at any time you wish to. If you do not customize your round up you will continue to get the updates on all areas

 

To customize your round-up now click here.

_____________________________________________________________________

India Centric Online Legal & Business Database

Bringing forth new efficiency and unparalleled results to research efforts.

In This Issue

[No.45]                                                                        March 30, 2003

SEBI
CBDT
CBEC Excise Tariff
CBEC Excise Non Tariff
CBEC Customs Tariff
Service Tax
RBI
DGFT
Department of Commerce
Department of Industrial Policy
Department of Information Technology
Ministry of Petroleum
Press Information Bureau
Supreme Court
International Legal News

To keep you informed about the latest Legislative and Regulatory information manupatra.com publishes this e-roundup highlighting the recent changes brought about by the Notifications/Acts/Bills /Ordinances etc.

About manupatra.com

../ provides comprehensive and easy to use legal and related information over the Internet .Our database covers Central Laws , Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court (full text of the judgments from 1950 onwards ), Orders of Tribunals , Bills , Notifications, Circulars and more

Key features of manupatra are

Content is derived from reliable primary and secondary sources
Database is updated on a daily basis
Electronic Ready Reckoner to view the judgments under a particular section of an Act / Subject
Powerful search engine with user friendly interfaces
Search in any one court/year or multiple courts/year
Hyper-linking of documents

Updated modules on WTO, Anti Dumping, Arbitration, Investment Destinations Abroad, Capital Markets, Taxation, Environment, Cyber & IT Laws, IPR, Corporate Laws, Industrial Policies, Foreign Trade, Forex & Banking and more

For subscription to manupatra.com or for more details please log onto ../ or call us at 0120 4531811 or send an email to : contact@manupatra.com

If at any stage you wish to stop receiving the e-roundup please click here to unsubscribe.

SEBI

Secondary Market Division

  • Electronic Data Information Filing And Retrieval (EDIFAR)

Circular No. SMD/Policy/ Cir - 10/2003 Dated 17.03.2003 : SEBI vide circular SMD/Policy/Cir-17/2002 dated July 03, 2002 provided that the list of companies which are required to file documents/statements on-line shall be specified by SEBI from time to time. In view of the above, it has now been decided to make the requirement of filing of specific documents/statements applicable to further 500 companies, selected on the basis of market capitalization and turnover. These companies would be required to upload all the Statements / Information as mentioned in circular SMD/Policy/Cir-13/2002 dated June 20, 2002, on the EDIFAR web site with effect from quarter ending March 30, 2003.

CBDT

  • New Jeevan Dhara-I and New Jeevan Akshay-I Plans Specified for Sec. 88(2)(xiiia) of Income-tax Act, 1961

Notification No. 53/2003 Dated 18.03.2003 : The Central Government has specified the New Jeevan Dhara-I and New Jeevan Akshay-I Plans of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as filed by that Corporation with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, as the annuity plans of that Corporation for the purposes of the said clause (xiiia).

  • Notification u/s 10(23) and 10(23G) 

Notification No. 51/2003 and No. 52/2003 Dated 13.03.2003 : The Andhra Cricket-Association, Guntur has been Notified U/S 10(23) and M/S Bharati Telesonic Ltd., New Delhi has been Approved U/S 10(23G). 

  • Provisions Relating to Designation of Transfer Pricing Officer and Director of Income-Tax 

Notification No. 50/2003 Dated 12.03.2003 : The Central Board of Direct Taxes has directed that,

(a) the Transfer Pricing Officer referred to in the Explanation to section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as specified, shall be subordinate to the Director of Income-tax as specified.

(b) the Director of Income-tax, as specified, shall be subordinate to the Director General of Income-tax as specified.

CBEC Excise Tariff

  • Amendment to Notification No.214/86 Dated 25.03.1986 

Notification No. 20/2003 Dated 25.03.2003 : In the said notification,- 

(i) in the opening paragraph, -

(a) for the words, “sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government”, the words, “sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), (herein after referred to as Special Importance Act), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do,” have been substituted; 

(b) for the words, “from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986)”, the words, “from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the Schedules to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ( 5 of 1986), the additional duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the Schedule to the said Special Importance Act” have been substituted;

(ii) in the Table, for the entry in column (2), the following entry has been substituted, 

“All goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), other than matches.”

CBEC Excise Non Tariff

  • CENVAT Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2003 

Notification No. 25/2003 NT Dated 25.03.2003 : 1. In rule 2, clause (h) has been substituted, which specifies that “manufacturer” or “producer”in respect of yarns or fabrics will include a person who is liable to pay duty of excise leviable on such goods under sub-rule (1) of rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. In rule 4, in sub-rule (1), for the proviso new proviso specifying that CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of such inputs in respect of the final products, namely, yarns or fabrics, has been substituted.

3. in rule 6, in sub-rule (1), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely,-

“ Provided the CENVAT credit on inputs shall not be denied to job worker referred to in rule 12 B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the said inputs are used in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that rule.”

4. Rule 9A relating to Transitional provisions for Textile and Textile Articles, has been inserted.

  • Central Excise (Third Amendment) Rules, 2003 

Notification No. 24/2003 NT Dated 25.03.2003 : Amendments have been made in Rule 4, 5 and 12 and new Rule 12A relating to Job work in textiles and textile articles, has been inserted.

  • Amendment to Notification No. 43/2001 Dated 26.06.2001

Notification No. 23/2003 NT Dated 24.03.2003 : In the said notification, in the Explanation I, after clause (d), the following clause has been inserted, namely:-

“(e) additional duty of excise levied under clause 149 of the Finance Bill, 2003, which clause has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 ( 16 of 1931), the force of law.”

  • Amendment to Notification No. 42/2001 Dated 26.06.2001 

Notification No. 22/2003 NT Dated 24.03.2003 : In the said notification, after the Explanation II, the following Explanation has been inserted, namely:- 

“Explanation III.- “Duty” for the purpose of this notification, includes, additional duty of excise as levied under clause 149 of the Finance Bill, 2003, which clause has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931( 16 of 1931), the force of law.”

  • Amendment to Notification No. 41/2001 Dated 26.06.2001

Notification No. 21/2003 NT Dated 24.03.2003 : In the said notification, in the Explanation, after clause (d), the following clause has been inserted,:-

“(e) additional duty of excise levied under clause 149 of the Finance Bill, 2003, which clause has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931(16 of 1931), the force of law.”.

  • Amendment to Notification No. 40/2001 Dated 26.06.2001

Notification No. 20/2003 NT Dated 24.03.2003 : In the said notification, in the opening paragraph,-

(i) after clause (c), the following clause has been inserted,

“(d) rebate of whole of additional duty of excise paid on tea on its exportation to any country except Nepal and Bhutan”;

(ii) in the Explanation I, after clause (d), the following clause has been inserted, 

“(e) additional duty of excise levied under clause 149 of the Finance Bill, 2003, which clause has, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 (16 of 1931), the force of law.”.

  • CENVAT Credit (Third Amendment) Rules, 2003 

Notification No. 19/2003 NT Dated 24.03.2003 : In sub-rule (6), clause (b) has been substituted. 

  • Amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 

Notification No. 18/2003 NT Dated 13.03.2003 : In rule 3 of the said rules, for sub-rule (3), the following sub-rule has been substituted,

“(3) The CENVAT Credit may be utilized for payment of – 

(a) any duty of excise on any final product; or

(b) an amount equal to CENVAT credit taken on inputs if such inputs are removed as such or after being partially processed; or 

(c) an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken on capital goods if such capital goods are removed as such; or 

(d) an amount under sub-rule (2) of rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.” 

3. In the said rules, the form annexed thereto has been numbered as ‘Form – 1’ and after Form – 1, as so numbered, Form - 2 has been inserted.

  • Amendment to the Central Excise Rules, 2002

Notification No. 17/2003 NT Dated 13.03.2003 : 1. In rule 11 of the said rules, for sub-rule (2), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, 

“(2) The invoice shall be serially numbered and shall contain the registration number, name of the consignee, description, classification, time and date of removal, rate of duty, quantity and value, of goods and the duty payable thereon.”

2. In rule 16 of the said rules, after sub-rule (2), the following Explanation shall be inserted, 

“Explanation:- The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.”

3. Rule 16A relating to Removal of goods for job work, etc., has been inserted.

CBEC Customs Tariff

  • Guidelines for considering request for exemption from payment of customs duty under Section 25(2) of Customs Act, 1962

Circular No. 18 /2003-Cus.Dated 24.03.2003 : It has now been decided that importers, desirous of seeking ad-hoc exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, may also apply to the concerned Commissioner of Customs at the port of import. The Commissioner of Customs will forward such requests to the Board along with the documents mentioned in Annexure II of this circular and his comments regarding the charitable nature of the applicant institution, the nature of its activities, reputation, etc. The Commissioner may also recommend whether provisional clearance should be considered.

  • Removal of Laptop Computers and Video Projection System Temporarily out of EOU or EHTP / STP/SEZ Unit-Reg.

Circular No. 17 /2003-Cus. Dated 24.03.2003 : It has been decided that for taking duty free imported or locally procured laptop computers and Video Projection systems out of the EOU/STP/ETHP/SEZ units temporarily, the unit would be required to follow the procedure as mentioned below:-

(i) The EOU or STP/EHTP/SEZ unit after import / local procurement of laptop computers and video projection system shall account the same in their inventory.

(ii) The unit will issue a certificate authorising the employee by name and giving the full specification such as sr. no., model no. , manufacturer name etc. of the Laptop computers and Video projection system intended to be taken outside the bonded area temporarily. 

(iii) The concerned units will be required to maintain a record of such letters of authorisation issued in terms of (ii) above for temporarily taking out or bringing in the unit the laptop computer/ video projection system. These records shall be made available at the time of inspection by the jurisdictional officers of Customs or Central Excise as the case may be.

  •  Anti-Dumping Duty 

Notification No. 41/2003, No. 42/2003, Dated 17.03.2003, No. 45/2003 Dated 21.03.2003, No. 46/2003 Dated 24.03.2003 and No. 47/2003 Dated 24.03.2003 : Anti-Dumping Duty has been imposed on the import of Vitamin E Acetate and Vitamin E feed grade, Hexa Methylene Tetramine, Certain Polyester Staple Fibres (PSF), Para cresol and Phenol.

  • Enhancement /Loading on invoice price - regarding 

Circular No. 16 /2003-Cus. Dated 17.03.2003 : It has come to the notice of the Board that the Customs field formation(s) are arbitrarily enhancing the invoice value of imported goods without giving a speaking order. The Board has instructed that the proper officer should follow the procedure laid down under Rule 10A of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 to satisfy himself about the possible under-valuation. He should then intimate the importer in writing the ground for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the goods imported and also provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before rejecting the declared value. 

In view of the above, all the officers may be intimated that where declared value is rejected, an appealable order should be issued to the importer after following the due process of law.

Service Tax

  • E-filing of Service Tax Returns

Circular No.1/52/2003-ST Dated 11.03.2003 : The Central Board of Excise and Customs is getting ready to facilitate electronic filing of ST-3 returns of Service Tax from the month of April, 2003. Initially, this facility will be extended to only select class or group of service tax providers

  • Enforcement Date of General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2002

Notification No. SO329(E) Dated 21.03.2003 : The Central Government has appointed 21st day of March, 2003 as the date on which the Enforcement Date of General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2002 shall come into force.

RBI

  •   International Seminar/Conference/Convention etc. in India - Temporary Foreign Currency Accounts 

Circular No: A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No.87 Dated 20.03.2003 : Reserve Bank has been receiving applications for opening temporary foreign currency accounts from organisers of international Seminars, Conferences, Conventions etc. for holding such events in India. With a view to facilitate expeditious disposal of such applications, it has been decided that authorised dealers may, henceforth, consider such requests, subject to the organisers obtaining the prior approval from the concerned Administrative Ministry of Government of India for the conduct of the relevant event, including invitation to foreign participants/speakers/faculty.

  • Draft guidelines for introduction of Credit Derivatives in India 

Notification No. DBOD.BP. 1057 /21.04.103/2002-03 Dated 26.03.2003 : As a step towards enhancing and fine-tuning the existing risk management practices in banks, a Working Group on Credit Derivatives was constituted in Reserve Bank of India drawing experts from select banks and Financial Institutions and Reserve Bank. The Working Group studied the need and scope for allowing banks to use credit derivatives, the regulatory issues involved and has since submitted its report, based on which the draft guidelines have been prepared keeping in view the present regulatory environment, the state of development of the market for introduction of credit derivatives and the preparedness of the banks for using credit derivative products.

  • Guidelines for bank finance for PSU Disinvestments : Stipulation of lock-in period for shares 

Notification No. DBOD. BP. BC. 83 / 21.04.137/ 2002- 2003 Dated 21.03.2003 : It has been decided that Banks should, while deciding to extend finance to the borrowers who participate in the PSU disinvestment programme, advise borrowers to execute an agreement whereby they undertake to: 

a. Produce the letter of waiver by the Government for disposal of shares acquired under PSU disinvestment programme during the lock-in period, or 

b. Include a specific provision in the documentation with the Government permitting the pledgee to liquidate the shares during the lock-in period, in case of shortfall in margin requirement or default by the borrower. 

  • Interest Rates on Deposits – Capital Gains Account Scheme – 1988 

Notification No. DBOD. Dir. BC. 82/13. 03.00 /2002-03 Dated 19.03.2003 : With reference to Notification DBOD No. Dir.BC.108/13.03.00/2000-01 dated April 19,2001 in terms of which the banks were advised of the rates of interest on deposits made under Capital Gains Accounts Scheme, 1988, introduced by Government of India, the rates have been reviewed. The revised rates will come into effect from March 01, 2003.

  • Offshore Banking Units (OBUs) in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) 

Notification No. DBOD IBS BC 80 /23.13.004/2002-03 Dated 19.03.2003 : It is now clarified that an eligible bank can set up one OBU in one SEZ. The banks can therefore set up more than one OBU, but not in the same SEZ. 

Reserve Bank of India has received requests from banks for allowing OBUs in one SEZ to lend to units and SEZ developers in other SEZs. Banks have also requested that the restriction on overseas lending by OBUs may be removed. It is advised that the restrictions in this regard will continue for the present. The matter will be reviewed later based on the performance of OBUs over a period of six months. It has been decided that OBUs may be allowed to invest their surplus funds outside India under the investment policy framed for this purpose by the Board of Directors of the bank concerned.

  • Guidelines for uniform accounting for Repo / Reverse repo transactions 

Notification No. IDMC. 3810 /11.08.10 / 2002-03 Dated 24.03.2003 : On a review of the accounting practices followed by all RBI regulated entities for accounting repo / reverse repo transactions, it emerged that there were divergent practices prevailing among them. In order to ensure uniform accounting treatment in this regard and to impart an element of transparency, it has been decided to lay down uniform accounting principles, in consultation with Fixed Income Money Markets and Derivatives Association of India (FIMMDA), for repo/reverse repo transactions undertaken by all the regulated entities. However, for the present, these norms would not apply to repo / reverse repo transactions under the Liquidity Adjustment Facility (LAF) with RBI. The uniform accounting principles will be applicable from the financial year 2003-04. On implementation, market participants may undertake repos from any of the three categories of investments, viz., Held For Trading, Available For Sale and Held To Maturity.

  • Interest Rates on Deposits 

Circular No. UBD.BPD.DIR/PCB.CIR. 42 /13.01.00/2002-03 Dated 25.03.2003 : It has been decided to reduce the interest rate of domestic and ordinary non-resident savings deposits as well as savings deposits under Non-resident (External) Accounts Scheme by 0.5 percentage point from 4.0 per cent to 3.5 per cent per annum effective March 1, 2003.

  • 6.5% Savings Bonds, 2003 (Non-taxable)

Notification No. CO.DT.13.01.298/H-3572/2002-03 Dated 15.03.2003 : It has been decided by the Government of India to issue 6.5% Savings Bonds, 2003 (Non-taxable) with effect from 24th March 2003, as per Government of India Notification No. F.4(9)-W&M/2003 dated March 13, 2003. 

  • 6.5 % Savings Bond, 2003 (Non-taxable)

Notification No. CO.DT.13.01.298/H-3566/2002-03 Dated 15.03.2003 : It has been decided by the Government of India to issue 6.5 % Savings Bond, 2003 (non taxable) with effect from 24th March 2003 in terms of their Notification No.4 (9)-W&M/2003 dated 13th March 2003.

DGFT

  • Retrospective effect of the criteria permitting 25% BG for manufacturer exporters having an export turnover of less than Rs 1 crore

Circular No. 21/2002-2007 Dated 18.03.2003 : It has been decided that the facility granted under the two Public Notices 51 and 64 would be available to licences issued earlier as the provisions are aimed at the reduction in the transaction costs of small exporters and established domestic companies.

Department of Commerce

  • Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation Concerning Import of Met Coke from Japan

Notification No. 14/41/2002-DGAD Dated 20.03.2003 : Anti Dumping Investigations have been initiated Concerning import of Met Coke from Japan.

Department of Industrial Policy

  • Exemption to Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, from Rule 31(2) of the Explosives Rules, 1983

Notification No. SO309(E) Dated 20.03.2003 : The Central Government has exempted the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Krishna Well Logging Services, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, Godavari Bhavan, Base Complex, Rajahmundry-533103 (Andhra Pradesh) from the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 31 of the Explosives Rules, 1983. 

Department of Information Technology

  • Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and conditions of Service of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2003 

Notification No. GSR221(E) Dated 17.03.2003 : The Central Government has made the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and conditions of Service of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2003 regulating the terms and conditions of the service of the Presiding Officer, to be effective from 17.03.2003.

  • Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003

Notification No. GSR220(E) Dated 17.03.2003 : The Central Government has made the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003 to to be effective from 17.03.2003. The Rules provide for Eligibility for Adjudicating Officer, Scope and Manner of holding inquiry, Scope and Manner of holding inquiry.

Ministry of Petroleum

  • New Scheme of Royalty on Crude Oil w.e.f. 01.04.1998

Notification No. O-22013/1/2001-ONG-III Dated 17.03.2003 : The Government, constituted a Committee for evolution of a new scheme of royalty on crude oil w.e.f. 1.4.1998, because, inter-alia, the State Governments had been requesting for revision in the methodology for fixation of the rates of royalty paid by National Oil Companies (NOCs) since 01,04.1998. The Committee consulted all stakeholders, especially the major oil & gas producing State Governments and the National oil companies. It also obtained expert opinion of National Institute of Public Finance & Policy (NIPFP), an eminent autonomous body supported by the Ministry of Finance. After considering the recommendations of the Committee and subsequent views of some of the State Governments, the Government has decided to introduce new Scheme of Royalty on crude oil w.e.f. 01.04.1998. 

Press Information Bureau

  • Modernisation of Trade Marks Registry Makes Rapid Progress

Date 26.03.2003 : As part of the major project for modernisation and upgradation of the intellectual property framework in India, the Trade Marks Registry in the country is being modernised at a rapid pace with the basic objective of eliminating the backlog of pending applications.

Supreme Court

  • People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr., Lok Satta and Ors. and Association for Democratic Reforms Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 33B inserted in the Representation of People Act, 1951 by Amendment Ordinance 4 of 2002, which on repeal is succeeded by 3rd Amendment Act of 2002, is liable to be declared invalid being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Securing information on the basic details concerning the candidates contesting for elections to the Parliament or State Legislature promotes freedom of expression and therefore the right to information forms an integral part of Article 19(1)(a). 

Section 33B inserted by the Representation of People (3rd Amendment) Act, 2002 does not pass the test of constitutionality firstly for the reason that it imposes blanket ban on dissemination of information other than that spelt out in the enactment irrespective of the need of the hour and the future exigencies and expedients and secondly for the reason that the ban operates despite the fact that the disclosure of information now provided for is deficient and inadequate. The right to information provided for by the Parliament under Section 33A in regard to the pending criminal cases and past involvement in such cases is reasonably adequate to safeguard the right to information vested in the voter/citizen. However, there is no good reason for excluding the pending cases in which cognizance has been taken by Court from the ambit of disclosure. The Election Commission has to issue revised instructions to ensure implementation of Section 33A subject to what is laid down in this judgment regarding the cases in which cognizance has been taken. The Election Commission's orders related to disclosure of assets and liabilities will still hold good and continue to be operative. 

  • Delhi Farming and Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

During the year 1962 certain agricultural land belonging to the appellant company was compulsorily acquired. The appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 7,64,787 as compensation towards the acquired land on which an amount of Rs. 2,94,844 became payable as interest. The compensation amount of Rs. 7,45,109.72, being capital gain on the land compulsorily acquired by the Government, was transferred to capital reserve and shown as such in the balance sheet. The Directors of the appellant company took the view that there was no possibility of distributing dividend in the concerned three accounting years on account of the past losses including the loss of the only asset of the company i.e. agricultural land. It was, therefore, thought prudent to capitalize the compensation amount in a capital reserve account and not fritter it away by distribution of dividend. The Income-tax Officer disagreed and took the view that there was sufficient money in the hands of the appellant which could and ought to have been declared as dividend and issued notices to the appellant under Section 104 of the Act for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Appeal was made to the income Tax Appellate Tribunal which resulted in full relief to the appellant as the Tribunal agreed with the contentions of the appellant and held that the provisions of Section 104 of the Act could not be invoked by the Income-tax officer in both the assessment years i.e. 1974-75 and 1975-76 however, the High Court answered both the questions against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 

The Hon'ble supreme Court held that taken against the background of the accumulated losses of the company over several financial years, together with the loss of the only asset of the company, there was nothing unreasonable in the decision of the Board of Directors not to distribute dividends from the compensation awarded but to capitalize it in a reserve account. In the result, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal for the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 was upheld and the questions raised were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 

International Legal News
  • Government: Constitutionality of denying vote to persons with multiple residences - Certiorari Denied.

 The New York Election Law does not impermissibly deny voters who have residences in more than one community the right to vote in multiple local elections, the Second Circuit previously held in a case in which the Supreme Court has now denied certiorari. The Second Circuit found that permissible government interests in avoiding administrative difficulties and election fraud justified any differential treatment between such voters, who could vote in only one of multiple districts in which they might have local interests. Thus, New York's laws did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The petition for certiorari challenged the Court of Appeals' failure to subject the law to strict scrutiny. The petition stated that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when a law discriminates against local residents by permitting some to vote while denying the franchise to other, similarly situated residents is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, the law must be subject to strict scrutiny. The petition further stated that the Court of Appeals made "an initial nod in the direction of strict scrutiny," but ultimately sustained the law as "reasonable."

Wit v. Berman, 306 F.3d 1256 (C.A.2-N.Y. 2002).

  • Labor and Employment: Legality of postmerger consolidation of general railroad committees of adjustment -- Certiorari Denied. 

The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in a case in which the Tenth Circuit entered summary judgment for an international railway workers' union, holding that the union, in consolidating its general committees of adjustment following a merger between railroads, reasonably interpreted the term "majority" in its constitution to mean a majority of the total votes cast rather than of each separate committee. Furthermore, its conduct was not arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith, notwithstanding departures from constitutional election procedures. Thus, the union did not breach its duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Tenth Circuit further held that the internal restructuring did not violate the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), absent a showing that general committee members who were eliminated were treated differently than other members with regard to their opportunity to vote on the recommended merger of committees. The action was brought against the international union by railroad employees whose local union had been dissolved and merged with another local union. The employees' petition for certiorari asked whether the local union had a right to a jury trial and to have ordinary summary judgment standards applied to its claims upon decidedly mixed facts. It also asked whether a trial court can obviate summary judgment standards in a labor case by applying a simple "not unreasonable" standard to evaluate union conduct even if that conduct violates the union's own constitution.

James v. International Broth. of Locomotive Engineers, 302 F.3d 1139 (C.A.10-Colo. 2002). 

  • Arbitration: Refusal of panel to compel production of financial documents did not warrant vacation of award. 

Refusal of the arbitration panel, in a contract dispute, to compel the production of certain financial documents did not provide a basis for vacating the award. There was no particular statutory basis for attacking the propriety of the panel's action in deeming specific portions of the documents irrelevant, and the minimum standards of fundamental fairness were met. Further, even if a fraud of some sort did occur relating to the form in which a party presented portions of its general ledger, the panel reached its decision on grounds independent of the alleged fraud.

 Prestige Ford v. Ford Dealer Computer Services, Inc,

  • Government: Constitutionality of imposing surcharge on civil and criminal fines to finance political campaigns -- Certiorari Denied.

 Denying certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has let stand a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court upholding a surcharge on civil and criminal fines to help fund the State's system of public financing for state elections. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the10% surcharge, because it was allocated to political campaigns in viewpoint neutral manner, did not violate the free speech rights of fine payers. The petitioner argued that the decision misapplied the Supreme Court's compelled speech jurisprudence by extending Bd. Of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 120 S.Ct. 1346, 146 L.Ed.2d 193 (2000), which upheld a mandatory student activity fee against a First Amendment challenge, outside of its university setting. Instead, the Arizona Supreme Court should have applied the line of cases beginning with Abood, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977), which held that teachers could not be forced by their union to fund political and other ideological activities of which they did not approve. These cases apply a germaneness test, which asks whether the compelled contributions advance activities that are germane to the collecting organization's duties. Under this test, petitioner argued, civil and criminal fine payers might be assessed fees related to the administration of justice, but not political subsidies. The petition asked whether the State could permissibly single out a discrete group of individuals to involuntarily bear the financial burden of a public campaign subsidy program, and whether Southworth was merely an exception to the general rule of the Abood line of cases that did not extend outside of its educational setting.

May v. McNally, 203 Ariz. 425, 55 P.3d 768 (Ariz. 2002).

  • Labor and Employment: Repudiation of collective bargaining agreement as matter for arbitrator -- Certiorari Granted. 

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case in which the Second Circuit held that the question whether a union, by striking in contravention of a no-strike clause contained in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), repudiated the CBA, upon which the union relied to invoke interest arbitration, was for an arbitrator, not the courts. The interest arbitration clause broadly provided that "any controversy or dispute arising out of the failure of the parties to negotiate a renewal of [the] Agreement" should be submitted to the arbitrator. The Supreme Court also vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002). In Howsam, the Supreme Court held that the issue whether the arbitration of a dispute between a brokerage firm and its customer was time-barred under the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Code of Arbitration Procedure was a gateway procedural dispute that did not present a "question of arbitrability." Interpreting the NASD's time limit rule thus was a matter presumptively for the arbitrator, not the courts.

Mulvaney Mechanical, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers Intern. Ass'n., Local 38, 288 F.3d 491 (C.A.2-Conn. 2002).)

  •  Intellectual Property: "Smart power" as generic term in semicondcutor industry -- Certiorari Denied. 

Denying certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has let stand a Sixth Circuit decision that the term "smart power" was "generic," even though the term had been registered as a trademark and had become incontestable. The Court of Appeals found that the term, as used in the semiconductor industry, was not "merely descriptive," but it was used to describe the type of technology, i.e., a wide range of products and technologies all of which implemented the function of interfacing logic circuits to power loads, not to identify the source of such products. The petition for certiorari asserted that the district court improperly applied the summary judgment standard. According to the petition, the first time the competitor moved for summary judgment against the trademark holder, the district court found that the holder had presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue that its mark was not generic. Later, the competitor added more evidence in a second summary judgment motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on the basis of the "overwhelming evidence" presented by the competitor. The district court's decision to grant the motion, and the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the grant, could only arise from an improper weighing of the evidence, the petition concluded.

Nartron Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 305 F.3d 397 (C.A.6-Mich. 2002).

  • Contracts: Contract consideration did not require stadium authority to purchase other properties.

 Consideration for a contract between a county stadium authority and a property vendor did not require the stadium authority to purchase other properties adjoining the vendor's property. The contract, read as a whole, plainly provided only that the vendor would convey property to the stadium authority upon payment of money and did not otherwise specify a separate price for any of the individual parcels of property, and while the contact provided that the price to be paid per square foot for the five parcels included in the contract was to be equal to the price per square foot paid for certain other property, nowhere did the contract require the stadium authority to purchase the other property.

 Alibri v. Detroit Wayne County Stadium Authority

  • Computers and online services: Internet sales of beauty products was possible trademark violation.

The assignee of the trademark "AHAVA," used in connection with health and beauty care products, satisfied the likelihood of success on the merits requirement, for issuance of a preliminary injunction barring Internet sales of products acquired from the manufacturer in Israel and imported into the United States. While the mark on the imported products reflected the origin of the product, there was a likelihood that customers would confuse the assignee's mark, which reflected customer goodwill developed through the assignee's exercise of tight quality control over the products, and the mark appearing on the imported products, not subjected to those quality control standards. 

Ahava (USA), Inc. v. J.W.G., Ltd.

  • Computers and online services: Scienter pleading requirement was satisfied in securities suit against Internet CEO. 

Investors satisfied the scienter requirement, for stating a securities fraud claim under § 10(b), against the former chief executive officer (CEO) of a corporation maintaining a home ownership information Internet website. The investors cited public statements made while the CEO was in possession of conflicting information, his suspiciously timed stock sales, his personal involvement in transactions resulting in revenues obtained in return for undisclosed reciprocal payments, and his behind-the-scenes conversations showing knowledge of fraud

In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation

  • Computers and Online Services: Arbitration of software license validity would precede copyright infringement litigation.

 A court would stay a software licensor's suit against a licensee, seeking equitable relief for alleged copyright infringement, pending the outcome of a contractually mandated arbitration of the key question whether the license had been breached or terminated. Resolution of this question was key to resolution of the copyright issues

Liveware Publishing, Inc. v. Best Software, Inc.

  • Damages: Owner was only entitled to maximum of two awards of statutory damages for alleged infringement.

 A copyright holder was only entitled to a maximum of two awards of statutory damages for the alleged infringement of its copyrights, one award of statutory damages per work infringed, where the registration covered the products in their entirety, and the underlying preexisting works contained therein, in which copyright holder also owned copyright. The registration of compilations or derivative works constituted a total of two works, i.e., one for each registration of compilation or derivative work.

 Xoom, Inc. v. Imageline, Inc.

  • Science and Technology: Patent holder was held to restrictive claim construction that was argued during prosecution. 

A patent holder was held to the restrictive claim construction that was argued during prosecution, even though the patent holder asserted that the statements made by the prosecuting attorney constituted error that should not have been binding on the applicant because the distinguishing features "were not and are not reflected in the claims." There was nothing in the prosecuting attorney's remarks that was at odds with anything in the specification or claims, the statements distinguishing the prior art were detailed, consistent, and repeated, and a reasonable competitor would have believed that the applicant's disclaiming statements were not a mere mistake. 

Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Industries, L.P.

  • Real Property: Board of equalization had authority to extend time for filing appeal to specific class of taxpayers. 

County board of equalization had the authority to extend the time for filing a real estate tax appeal to only a specific class of residential taxpayers whose tax assessments rose 17 percent, rather than to a commercial taxpayer whose tax assessment increased 135 percent. There was no statutory limit on the board's authority regarding the extension. This decision may not yet be released for publication. 

Gateway Hotel Management, Inc. v. Board Of Equalization of St. Louis County

  • Real Property: Toll bridge operators were not statutorily exempt from ad valorem taxes on their real property. 

The inclusion of the general term "tax" within the statute governing only the licensing of private toll roads and toll bridges did not exempt a group of toll bridge operators, as taxpayers, from ad valorem taxes on the real property used in connection with their bridges. The provision in the statute that no "further tax" can be imposed upon a private toll road or toll bridge after it is licensed applies only to taxes dealing with the actual licensing of those who establish or operate private toll roads and toll bridges. It does not clearly express the Legislature's intent to exempt operators of toll roads and toll bridges from ad valorem taxes.

  • Ex parte Emerald Mountain expressway Bridge, L.L.C.International Law: Oil company could be liable for international law violations under Alien Tort Claims Act

A New York federal district court has ruled that it had subject matter jurisdiction over an action brought against a Canadian oil company by current and former residents of the Republic of the Sudan. The plaintiffs brought the action under the Alien Tort Claims Act, and alleged that the defendant had collaborated with Sudan in "ethnically cleansing" civilian populations in order to facilitate oil exploration and extraction in southern Sudan. The court, in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, rejected its argument that, as a corporation, it could not be liable for international law violations under the Act.

Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.

  • Criminal Justice: Forgetting to register is not a defense to the willful failure to register as a sex offender.

In a prosecution for the willful failure to register as a sex offender, as a matter of law, forgetting to update one's registration when required, by itself, does not negate the actual knowledge required to satisfy the "willfulness" element of the offense. Because one cannot forget something one does not already know, the fact one has forgotten something necessarily presumes actual knowledge. Thus, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that forgetting to register is not a defense. Moreover, in the face of the registration statute's rigorous notification and registration requirements, it would be unreasonable to believe that the Legislature intended that a mere lapse of memory should excuse a failure to register.

People v. Barker

  • Criminal Justice: Corporate president was criminally liable for corporation's violation of state building code.

The responsible-corporate-officer doctrine applied to impose misdemeanor criminal liability on the president of a corporate general contractor for the corporation's violation of Minnesota's building code, even if the subcontractors on the construction project actually violated the code by providing inadequate foundation elevations. The corporation pleaded guilty to the same violation. The president was the sole shareholder and controlled the corporation's policies and activities. The city development director personally informed the president in writing on several occasions that the elevations violated the building code, but the president failed to ensure that the violations were corrected.

State v. Arkell

Source: WestlawInternational.com