2018 (11) TMI 311 - AT - Customs

Export of Non-Basmati Rice or not - restricted item - whether the appellant exporters have exported Basmati Rice as permissible or have exported non-Basmati Rice which was a restricted item for export? Held that - It is evident from the documents on record that no test report is available which can reliably certify that the rice under export was Basmati or non-Basmati - the impugned order is presumptive and vague, there being no cogent evidence available on record, supporting the findings of the respondent-Commissioner. The respondent-authorities are directed to grant the consequential benefits, including return of pre-deposit etc., made during the pendency of these proceedings forthwith, not exceeding a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether the appellants exported Basmati Rice or non-Basmati Rice, imposition of penalties, reliance on test reports, cross-examination requests, evidentiary value of concessions made by directors, adequacy of test reports, reliance on previous judgments, maintenance of judicial discipline.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in the appeals was to ascertain whether the appellants exported Basmati Rice or non-Basmati Rice, which was a restricted item for export. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for fresh adjudication based on subsequent test reports.

2. The re-adjudication order imposed penalties on the appellants for exporting non-Basmati Rice. The appellants contended that they exported Basmati Rice as per the prescribed parameters and circulars. The samples were tested by various laboratories, and the appellants challenged the reliance placed on incomplete and defective reports.

3. The appellants argued that subsequent test reports did not conclusively determine the rice variety exported. They highlighted that the samples deteriorated over time, rendering the reports unreliable. They also questioned the reliance on reports that lacked confirmation of Basmati characteristics.

4. The Revenue relied on the impugned order, emphasizing the findings of the laboratories indicating non-Basmati Rice content in the samples. The Revenue also cited the requirement for Basmati Rice to meet specific criteria for export, as per notifications and court rulings.

5. The Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the adjudication process and the reliance on test reports from unqualified laboratories. It noted that the earlier concession made by the directors had no evidentiary value and directed retesting of the disputed rice samples by an appropriate laboratory.

6. Considering the lack of conclusive evidence certifying the exported rice as Basmati or non-Basmati, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order presumptive and vague. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeals with consequential benefits.

7. The Tribunal directed the respondent-authorities to grant the appellants the consequential benefits, including the return of pre-deposit amounts, within 60 days from the date of the order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues involved in the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles applied.