2018 (2) TMI 703 - AT - Customs

Export of Basmati Rice - Circular No. 33(RE-08)/2004-09 dated 30/09/2009 - Held that - Tribunal had directed to get the samples tested through Agmark approved laboratories in view of the fact that M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. was not a qualified laboratory as per the Circular issued by the DGFT Revenue should not have once again relied on the test report given by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. for adjudication in the present matter - It was held by this Tribunal by affirming the order dated 31/03/2010 passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that report given by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. was not qualified to adjudicate the matter - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding export of Basmati Rice; Competency of testing laboratory; Reliance on test report by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd.; Adjudication based on test report; Compliance with Agmark standards; Imposition of penalty and Redemption Fine; Judicial discipline and understanding of adjudication process by the Original Authority; Appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved a case concerning the export of Basmati Rice by the appellants. The dispute arose when the samples of the rice were tested by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd., and it was reported that the percentage of Basmati Rice in the sample was nil. Consequently, the goods were confiscated, and penalties were imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed a retest of the samples through an Agmark Laboratory as per the DGFT Circular. The Tribunal remanded the matter for retesting, emphasizing its power to do so. However, the samples sent to the Regional Agmark Laboratory were found unsuitable for analysis due to infestation by insects.

The Original Authority, in his order, accepted the testing report by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd., stating that it complied with Agmark standards and the DGFT Policy Circular. This decision led to the imposition of penalties and Redemption Fine on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order, finding no evidence to contradict the report by M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. However, the Tribunal noted that the Original Authority had not followed the directive to use an Agmark approved laboratory for testing, as M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. was not qualified. The Tribunal criticized the lack of understanding of the adjudication process by the Original Authority and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to provide consequential relief to the appellant within three months from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment highlighted the importance of using competent laboratories for testing in such matters, emphasizing adherence to established standards and procedures. The decision underscored the significance of judicial discipline and proper understanding of the adjudication process by the authorities involved in ensuring fair and just outcomes in legal proceedings.