2015 (9) TMI 1367 - AT - Customs

Classification of product basmati Rice or Not Whether rice exported by appellant was Basmati Rice or not as per Serial No. 45 AA, as amended, of notification no. 93/RE-2007/2004-2009 Held that - according to restrictions imposed as per serial no. 45AA, grain of rice should be more than 6.61mm of length and ratio of length to breadth of grain shall be more than 3.5 There was no definition of Basmati Rice in notification and there was also no stipulation that inspite of satisfying size still rice can be Non-Basmati Rice Therefore all Rice Categories being sold as Basmati Rice in Commercial Parlance and having dimension mentioned in notification will not be covered as restricted category of Basmati Rice Nowhere in DGFT Policy, it was mentioned that if grain size restrictions were satisfied then Agmark authority s opinion will be Final Say on classification of Basmati Rice Supreme Court in case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh 2010 (7) TMI 556 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA opined that Provisions of Statute had to be given full effect to Legislative intent to achieve intended objective Therefore in view of said observations Confiscation order was not justified and order set aside Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether the exported goods were Basmati Rice as per the specified notification.

Analysis:
The appellant contended that Basmati Rice should have a grain length of more than 6.61mm and a length to breadth ratio of more than 3.5, as per the notification. The advocate argued that the testing of rice samples by Egg mark Testing Centres was not mandated by the notification. Reference was made to various case laws where similar issues were decided in favor of rice exporters.

The Revenue representative argued that a similar case based on testing by Eggmark Laboratory was upheld previously. The tribunal examined the case records to determine if the rice exported by the appellant qualified as Basmati Rice under the specified notification.

The tribunal noted that the notification specified the grain size requirements for Basmati Rice but did not define Basmati Rice explicitly. It was observed that the DGFT Policy Circular did not mandate Eggmark authority's opinion as the final say on the classification of Basmati Rice. The tribunal emphasized that statutory provisions should be interpreted based on legislative intent and the language of the notification, without adding or excluding any words.

Referring to previous judgments, the tribunal found that consignments meeting the specified length and ratio requirements in the notification should not be deemed non-Basmati Rice due to admixture content. The tribunal highlighted that the AGMARK standards were not mandated by the DGFT for determining Basmati Rice classification. Cases where exporters claimed benefits under specific notifications were distinguished from those where such claims were not made.

Based on the observations and case laws cited, the tribunal concluded that the confiscation/redemption upheld by the first appellate authority was unjustified. The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, with consequential relief if any.

In conclusion, the tribunal analyzed the notification's specifications, the relevance of testing by Eggmark Laboratory, the interpretation of statutory provisions, and the implications of previous judgments to determine the classification of the exported rice as Basmati Rice. The decision favored the appellant, overturning the earlier order and providing relief accordingly.