Rice classification must follow length-breadth parameters not percentage mixing for Basmati export determination

CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled on export of rice classified as Basmati versus non-Basmati. The tribunal found that rice classification should be based on length and breadth parameters per foreign trade policy, not percentage of other rice. The court held that redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000 under Section 125 of Customs Act was illegal since exported goods were unavailable for confiscation. Redemption fine is only imposable when goods are available for redemption. The tribunal set aside the redemption fine and remanded the matter to adjudicating authority for reconsideration. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the exported rice is Basmati or non-Basmati rice and the imposition of penalties under the Custom Act.
2. Whether the redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- is correct when the goods have been exported and are not available for redemption.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is determining whether the rice exported by the appellant is Basmati or non-Basmati rice and the consequent imposition of penalties under the Custom Act. The appellant argues that the rice meets the length and breadth parameters set by the foreign trade policy, making it Basmati rice. The appellant cites various judgments to support this claim, emphasizing that the criteria for classification should be based on the physical characteristics of the rice. However, the revenue authority contends that more than 82% of the rice exported was found to be non-Basmati rice, justifying the penalties imposed. The tribunal notes that the length and breadth of the rice, as per the test report, align with the parameters specified by the foreign trade policy. The tribunal also references previous judgments to support the appellant's argument, suggesting a reconsideration of the classification of the exported rice.

2. The second issue pertains to the correctness of imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 6,00,000/- when the goods have been exported and are not available for redemption. The appellant argues that redemption fine cannot be imposed when the goods are not available for redemption, citing relevant judgments to support this claim. The tribunal concurs with this argument, stating that the imposition of a redemption fine is contingent upon the availability of goods for redemption. Since the goods in question were exported and not present for redemption, the tribunal deems the imposition of the redemption fine as incorrect and illegal. Consequently, the tribunal sets aside the redemption fine and remands the matter to the adjudicating authority for further consideration.

In conclusion, the tribunal finds that the classification of the exported rice as Basmati or non-Basmati needs to be reassessed based on the criteria laid out in the foreign trade policy and supported by relevant judgments. Additionally, the tribunal rules that the redemption fine is not applicable when the goods have been exported and are unavailable for redemption, leading to the setting aside of the redemption fine. The matter is remanded for further review by the adjudicating authority.

---