2018 (1) TMI 695 - AT - Customs

Export of Basmati Rice - Prohibited goods - Held that - the parameter of length on length to breadth ratio as notified in DGFT through said Notification dated 05.11.2008 would be the additional parameter for judging the consignment as Basmati and that to decide whether the verity of rice is Basmati or not the result of the test in the laboratory should be taken into consideration - the parameters laid down under the said Notification dated 05.11.2008 read with N/N. 57/2009-2014 dated 17.08.2010 have been met - there are no merits in the grounds raised by Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Export of Indian Brown Basmati Rice Pusa-1121 not conforming to Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rule, 1979.
2. Discrepancy in test report results and certification for export.
3. Interpretation of parameters for judging Basmati rice verity.
4. Compliance with DGFT notifications for Basmati rice export.

Issue 1:
The case involved the export of Indian Brown Basmati Rice Pusa-1121 that did not meet the standards prescribed in the Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rule, 1979. Despite the samples conforming to certain requirements, the export was prohibited, leading to the confiscation of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, stating that the rice variety was a type of non-basmati rice permitted for export under specific notifications. The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, noting compliance with the relevant notifications and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2:
A key discrepancy arose regarding the test report results and certification for export. The laboratory report confirmed that the samples did not meet the Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rule, 1979 standards but satisfied the requirements specified in DGFT notifications. The Revenue contended that the laboratory test results should be crucial in determining whether the rice variety qualified as Basmati. However, the Tribunal found that the parameters outlined in the notifications had been met, as discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and rejected the Revenue's arguments.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of parameters for judging the Basmati rice verity was crucial in this case. The Revenue argued that the length and length to breadth ratio parameters specified in the DGFT notification should be additional criteria for determining the Basmati rice type. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both parties and examining the records, concluded that the parameters set out in the notifications had been satisfied, as explained by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, emphasizing compliance with the relevant notifications.

Issue 4:
The case required a thorough analysis of compliance with DGFT notifications concerning Basmati rice export. The Tribunal confirmed that the requirements outlined in the notifications, including those related to grain length and ratio of length to breadth, had been met. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately addressed the laboratory test results and the goods exported, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and upholding of the Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal directed that the Respondent be entitled to consequential relief as per the law, thereby disposing of the Cross Objection as well.