2018 (3) TMI 933 - AT - Customs

Export of Indian Brown Basmati Rice Par-boiled - misdeclaration of goods - DGFT N/N. 55 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 05.11.2008 - prohibited goods - Held that - the parameters laid down under the said DGFT-Notification dated 05.11.2008 read with N/N. 57/2009-2014 dated 17.08.2010 have been met with as discussed by the learned Commissioner - there are no merit in the impugned order in confiscating the goods in question which have already been exported and imposing penalty on the appellant and its proprietor, based on the negative report received from laboratory in the light of Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rule, 1979, especially when the said report was challenged and request for retesting the samples by some other laboratory was made which was rejected without any plausible reasons - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Export of Indian Brown Basmati Rice Par-boiled not conforming to Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rules, 1979.
2. Discrepancy in test reports regarding the quality of the exported rice.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty based on the negative report from the laboratory.
4. Request for retesting the samples by another laboratory denied without plausible reasons.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal arose from the Order-in-Original dated 30/03/2012, where the export of Indian Brown Basmati Rice Par-boiled was contested due to non-conformity with Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rules, 1979. Samples drawn were tested and found not to meet the prescribed standards, leading to the confiscation of the goods. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: The Revenue argued that the parameters specified by DGFT through a notification dated 05.11.2008 should be considered in determining whether the rice qualifies as Basmati. The exporters claimed to have shipped Brown Basmati Rice to Italy, adhering to strict quality control measures, and receiving payment through proper channels. The discrepancy in the test results and the classification of the exported rice were key points of contention.

Issue 3: Following a thorough examination of the records and arguments from both parties, the Tribunal found that the parameters outlined in the DGFT notification of 05.11.2008, along with subsequent notifications, were met. The Tribunal disagreed with the confiscation of the exported goods and the penalty imposed based on a negative laboratory report, especially when the report was disputed, and a request for retesting by another laboratory was denied without valid reasons.

Issue 4: The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment in Customs Appeal No. C/54763/2014, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellants. Citing this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2012 and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, granting them consequential relief as per the law. The decision was made in line with the established legal principles and precedents.