TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed procedure of testing as noted herein above. When the law prescribes for a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same is to be done in the prescribed manner or not done at all. Further, the learned Commissioner has erred in observing that the DGFT Circular No. 33/08, permits only export of Basmati rice, but on perusal of the said Circular, I find that the export of ‘PUSA 1121' variety is also permitted. - the goods (rice under export) was not liable to confiscation - Decided in favor of assessee - Decided against the revenue. - Appeal No.C/444 & 643/10 and C/602 & 639/10 - Final Order Nos. A/2306-2309/2015-WZB(SMB) - Dated:- 12-9-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) For the Appellant: Shri N D George, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort. The Customs Department detained 3150 kgs. of Basmati Rice 193965 kgs. of Non-Basmati Rice totally valued at ₹ 43,32,552/-. It appeared to Revenue that as per DGFT Notification No. 38/07 dated 15.10.2007, the export of Non-Basmati Rice was prohibited. Accordingly, the rice under export with respect to the two shipping bills were sized under panchanama dated 23/24.3.2009 as the goods appeared liable for confiscation. On execution of Bank Guarantee and Bonds by the exporter, the goods were allowed to be taken back to town on or about 3.6.3009. The show-cause notice dated 18.12.2009 was issued on the exporter Chawla Trading Company alleging therein that as per the statement of Shri Daulatram Laxmandas Chawla, Proprietor of M/s Chaw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng, examination and stuffing of the goods. The Revenue felt that in the fact and circumstances, the appellant have attempted to export prohibited goods i.e. Non-Basmati Rice and as such, the appellant was required to show cause as to why the seized goods being 3150 kg of Basmati Rice should not be confiscated along with 193965 kg of non-basmati rice valued at ₹ 43,32,552/-. Further, why no penalty be imposed under Section 114(i) of the Act and further why not Bank Guarantee submitted be enforced and appropriated. 2.1 The appellant contested the show-cause by filing reply dated 6.2.2010 and filed a further reply dated 12.10.2010. The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order, It was held that the exporter have attemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement of testing is only to identify whether the goods are as declared by the exporter or otherwise and accordingly, held the report dated 27.8.2009 brought on record by the Addendum to show-cause notice dated 25.3.2010, is acceptable. It is further observed that the importer has no where disputed the fact that the consignment contained non-basmati rice and accordingly, held the basmati rice in question is liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) read with Section 119 and non-basmati rice liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Act with option to redeem by paying fine of ₹ 8,66,510/- and further imposed fine of ₹ 4,33,255/- on the exporting firm under Section 114(i) of the Act and also directed the Bank Guarantee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowable. Further, export of non-basmati rice PUSA 1121 having grain length of more than 7 mm and grain length to breadth ration of more than 4.0 has been allowed. The notification further prescribes that Customs shall allow export of consignment of rice of Basmati and PUSA 1121 based on the parameter of grain length and breadth ratio as prescribed. Customs, in case of doubt, will not detain or seize the consignment, but shall allow export after drawing samples for testing. In case of any adverse report or any discrepancy found, the matter is to be reported to the nearest Zonal Joint DGFT for necessary action. It is contended that evidently, the Revenue is in error as they have not considered the permissibility of PUSA 1121 rice and thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on fine needs to be enhanced as the goods are already released provisionally and not available for absolute confiscation. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the learned Commissioner has erred in issuing addendum to show-cause notice after receipt of the reply to show-cause notice dated 18.12.2009. The addendum is also vitiated on the ground that there is no reference in the show-cause notice of any samples being forwarded for test. Further, the findings of the learned Commissioner are vitiated for not following the prescribed procedure of testing as noted herein above. When the law prescribes for a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same is to be done in the prescribed manner or not done at all. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
