9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dubai in four containers. The Respondent also submitted a copy of the test report of private laboratory, i.e., Sri Ram Institute of Industrial Research, New Delhi. The goods were examined in the presence of the staff of Customs and of the Respondent and samples were drawn for testing at the SGS Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. at Gurgaon. However, the CHA and the representative of the Respondent requested that the sample be sent for testing to any Agmark Testing Centre. A written request was made by the Respondent to the Customs authorities by letter dated 3rd February, 2011. 3. The Respondent thereafter filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.953/2011 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 1st March, 2011 in the said writ petition directed the Department to draw the necessary samples in the presence of the Respondent and send them to any of the Agmark Testing Centres in terms of Circular No. 33(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 30th September, 2008 of the Customs Department. 4. Pursuant to the above order, samples were drawn on 10th March, 2011 and sent to the Regional Agmark Laboratory, Okhla, New Delhi (RAL). Two analytical reports, both dated 14th March 2011, were submitted by the RAL. The findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T notification. The Court noted that the licence issued to the Respondent for export referred to the commodity permitted to be exported as 'Basmati Parboiled 158248'. The second factor that weighed with the Court was that samples had to conform not only to the DGFT's notification dated 5th November 2008 but also to the Basmati Rice Rules. The Court was of the view that the report of RAL should bind the Respondent. The Court, therefore, agreed with the Department that the Respondent had attempted to export non-basmati rice prohibited for export in terms of DGFT notification thereby inviting action under Section 113 (d) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. In the review petition filed by the Respondent, this Court issued notice on 5th August 2016. On 10th February 2017, the following order was passed: "Rev. Pet. 608/2015 & CM No. 31475/2015 (for stay) 1. The central plank of the submission of the counsel for the Review Petitioner/Respondent is that by the Notification No. 55 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 5th November 2008 issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, an amendment was made to the earlier Notification dated 16th September 2008 whereby under Serial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts which were not available to the Court when it passed the order dated 25th August 2015 and which have a material bearing on the issue involved in the appeal.. 7. The Court accordingly allows the review petition, recalls its order dated 25th August 2015 and restores the appeal CUSAA No. 4 of 2013 to file. The pending application is disposed of. CUSAA 4/2013 8. The affidavit dated 7th September 2017 of the DDGFT explains the policy regarding export of non-basmati rice. Para 4 of the said affidavit reads as under: "4. The policy of export of non-basmati rice during the period under reference is given as under: a. Export of non-basmati rice was 'Prohibited' vide DGFT Notification No. 38 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 dated 15th October 2007. Export of Basmati rice was never banned and it was free for export subject to certain conditions: b. PUSA 1121 variety of non-Basmati rice was permitted for export vide DGFT Notification No. 37 dated 3rd September 2008 with the condition of Minimum Export Price (MEP) etc. c. Through Notification No. 39 dated 16th September 2008, it was notified that PUSA 1121 variety of non-Basmati rice will be permitted for export subject to grain length of more t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety identification of the rice. i. Policy Circular No. 33 of 30.09.2008 also specified that Customs will not hold back export consignments/ containers for want of test reports and export will be allowed after drawing samples, wherever required. Further in cases where the test report of samples was found at variance with the declaration of the exporter, the matter shall be brought to the notice of Zonal DGFT for appropriate action against the exporter. j. Through Policy Circular No. 11 dated 3rd November 2013, the earlier Policy Circular No. 33 of 30.09.2008 was withdrawn, as it became redundant on being export of non-basmati rice also made free." 9. Further in paras 7 and 8, it stated as under: "7. I state and submit that in view of the above referred fact that on the date of sampling i.e., 20th March 2011 by the Commissioner Customs, export of non-basmati rice was 'prohibited'. However, PUSA 1121 was allowed to be exported even as a non-Basmati rice vide Notification No. 37(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 3rd September 2008. Further, vide Notification No. 55 of 5th November 2008 read with Notification No. 57 of 17th August 2010, PUSA 1121 was permitted to be exported as 'Basmati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
