Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 301 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - whether the appellant herein who had carted the consignment of rice and filed shipping bills as the same to be basmati rice and claimed the benefit of DGFT Notification No.55(RE-2008)/2004-2009, dt.05.11.2008 as amended by Notification No.57/2009/14, dt.17.08.2010 are basmati rice or otherwise - Held that - all the consignments which were carted in for export, had conformed to the specification of average length and the ratio of length to breadth as per notifications claimed by the appellant. We find that the said notifications had only the conditions which are reproduced hereinabove and does not indicate any other condition to be satisfied for coming to a conclusion whether the consignment of rice is basmati or non-basmati rice. It is to be noted that the said notification even does not indicate any admixture to be considered for the purpose of getting benefit of the said notification. On the face of such clear notification, the Revenue authorities have held that though the export consignments meet the specification of the length and the ratio of length to breadth, has failed the admixture content, as the admixture content is more than limit. We do not find any such condition put in the notification, hence the Revenue s argument on point of admixture is incorrect. Exporter has acted on the basis of notification issued by DGFT and the goods presented conformed to the prescribed standards, we are of the view that these goods cannot be considered as goods prohibited for export and therefore we are of the view that the confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act is not maintainable. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order confiscating the goods and imposing the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the consignments of rice exported by the appellants are basmati rice or non-basmati rice as per DGFT notifications. - Validity of the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. - Interpretation of DGFT notifications regarding the conditions for export of basmati rice. - Applicability of Agmark standards in determining the nature of the exported rice. Analysis: 1. The appeals involved a common issue of determining whether the consignments of rice exported by the appellants were basmati rice or non-basmati rice as per DGFT notifications. The dispute arose from the examination of the consignments by dock officers and subsequent analysis by the Chief Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Mumbai to ascertain compliance with the specifications laid down in the notifications. 2. The adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods, imposed fines, and penalties on the appellants for allegedly mis-declaring the goods and attempting to export non-basmati rice. The first appellate authority set aside the confiscation in one case but imposed penalties. The main argument by the appellant was that the consignments met the length and ratio specifications required by the DGFT notifications, and the admixture content was not a condition for export as per the notifications. 3. The appellant contended that the Revenue's reliance on Agmark standards to determine the nature of the rice was incorrect. They cited previous Tribunal decisions emphasizing that compliance with DGFT notification criteria was sufficient for export eligibility, and Agmark standards were not mandated for this purpose. 4. The Departmental Representative argued that the export of non-basmati rice was prohibited to protect local interests, and the Agmark authorities were final arbiters on agricultural product specifications. They highlighted instances where similar appeals were rejected due to non-compliance with admixture standards. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the DGFT notifications and found that the consignments had met the length and ratio requirements specified. They noted that the notifications did not mention admixture content as a condition for export eligibility. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. 6. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from previous decisions where DGFT notifications were not claimed by the appellants before Customs authorities. Since the consignments in this case specifically claimed the benefit of the notifications and met the specified criteria, the Tribunal held that the confiscation and penalties were not justified. 7. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the contested orders, concluding that the consignments qualified as basmati rice under the DGFT notifications, and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in the case.
|