TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication 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. - Appeal No.C/12316,12599,13866,12505,12918/2013-DB - Order No. A/10977- 10981/2014 - Dated:- 21-5-2014 - MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN AND MR. H.K. THAKUR, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P.P. Jadeja, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri G.P. Thomas, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M.V. Ravindran; 1. All these appeals are disposed by a common order as the issue raised is same. 2. We notice that the appeal filed by M/s Green Village Agros Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the adjudicating authority in other cases also need to be set aside. It is his submission that the Revenue is contesting confiscation. In these cases having not filed an appeal in case of M/s Green Village Agros Pvt.Ltd, the Revenue cannot take a different stand in the other appeal. It is his submission that confiscation and the consequent redemption fine and penalty on the appellant is not justified or sustainable as the DGFT is the final regulatory authority so far as EXIM policy is concerned. It is his submission that the notifications which are relied upon by the Revenue authorities clearly state that basmati/pusa basmati rice would be, grain of the said rice should have specific length and length to breadth ratio should be of specific nature which according to him, the goods which were presented for export were conforming to the specification in the said notification. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority on the basis of admixture has held that the goods which were sought to be exported are not basmati rice and are to be treated as non-basmati rice, is incorrect as the said notification does not require the admixture of the samples to contain specific per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2011-TIOL-1551-CESTAT-AHM. He would also submit that due to such difficulties arising in export of the basmati rice, a meeting was convened by the Central Government of India, Ministry of Commerce Industry, DGFT and in the Minutes of the Meeting, it was held that for the purpose of ascertaining whether the export is of basmati rice or otherwise, the Agmark norms will be accepted and the report given by the Agmark shall be accepted by DRI. He put on record the said Minutes. He would also submit that on a reference made to Basmati Export Development Foundation, the said foundation in a letter dt.01.04.2014 had stated that the consignments of rice having presence of more than 20% of non-basmati rice cannot be accepted as export of consignment of basmati rice and that the DGFT notification providing conditions for export of basmati rice from time to time cannot be applied even if the grain of rice meets certain parameters. 5. At the conclusion of hearing on 24.04.2014, we granted liberty to both sides to file written submissions. The said written submissions are taken on record and considered by us. 6. We heard both sides at length, perused the records and considered the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntical issue in the case of Global Agro Impex (supra) has laid down the following ratio:- 7. The ld. AR for Revenue draws our attention to the fact that the circular of C.B.E. C. prescribes that the goods are to be sent to AGMARK laboratories for testing to find out whether the goods are Basmati Rice. Therefore, he submits that it is clear that the AGMARK standards should be applied to decide whether the goods were Basmati Rice and he submits that two laboratories certified that the goods were in fact not Basmati Rice. However ld. AR is not able to point out any notification from DGFT which prescribes that the AGMARK standards have to be applied to decide whether the goods are Basmati Rice or otherwise. On the contrary, the DGFT had prescribed criteria of only length and the ratio of length to breadth to decide whether the goods are Basmati Rice and if these criteria only are adopted the goods qualified to be exported. 8. Considering the fact that the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
