Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 834 - AT - CustomsExport of Basmati Rice - length and breadth, of the grain - AGMARK standards - prohibited items or not - appellant had exported goods claiming the benefit of the Notification No 55(RE-2008)/2004-2009 - Held that:- The grain they have exported undoubtedly satisfies the same as per the test report. However, we find force in the argument of the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue that these specification of "Nature of Restrictions" is applicable to the goods which is described under column 4 of the Notification, which against Sr. No 45AA specifies "Basmati Rice including Pusa Basmati 1121". It, therefore, undoubtedly means that the goods allowed to be exported under this Notification has to be Basmati Rice. We find that the original Adjudicating Authority has gone into the great detail whether the impugned goods are Basmati Rice or not. AGMARK standards - DGFT policy circular has clearly indicted that the same may be done - the goods are described in the Customs Notifications (Supra) as "Basmati Rice", and therefore Customs Authorities are fully justified to verify the impugned goods are Basmati Rice or not. We, therefore, find no illegality in the orders of the lower authorities in the said respect. Confiscation of goods already exported - Held that:- There is a difference between confiscation and liable to confiscation. It is settled law that the goods which are liable to confiscation can be ordered for to be confiscated, and fine in lieu of confiscation can be imposed. We also find that the amount of redemption fine in the instant case is only ₹ 3 lacs whereas value of the goods is ₹ 30,96,207/- which is considerate and appropriate. - Decided against the the appellants.
|