Export restrictions upheld as trader attempts to reclassify Garnet as Natural Abrasive to avoid canalisation requirements

CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed an appeal regarding classification of export goods described as "Natural Abrasive Grain and Abrasive." The appellant attempted to export material under CTH 25132090 to avoid restrictions, but department classified it as "Garnet" under CTH 2513 2030. DGFT notification 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 made Garnet a canalised item exportable only through India Rare Earth Limited (IREL). Laboratory analysis by CRCL New Delhi confirmed the material was "Natural Garnet" based on physical, chemical and XRD analysis. The appellant previously exported the same material as Garnet under HS code 2513 2030 but changed classification after the restrictive notification. CESTAT held that national security restrictions require strict interpretation and the appellant's conduct in attempting to circumvent canalisation requirements was unjustified. Redemption fine of ? 10,00,000 and penalty of ? 42,00,000 were upheld.

---

---

ISSUES:

• Whether the goods exported as "Natural Abrasive Grain" and "Abrasive" are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2513 2090 or should be reclassified under CTH 2513 2030 as "Natural Garnet".
• Whether the reliance on Office Memoranda issued by the Department of Atomic Energy, which were not part of the Show Cause Notice (SCN), is legally permissible for the purpose of imposing restrictions and penalties.
• Whether the DGFT Notification No. 26/2015-2020 dated 21.08.2018 restricts export of all garnet minerals irrespective of their origin or only Beach Sand Minerals (BSM) garnet found on coastal areas.
• Whether the exported goods fall within the restricted category under the DGFT Notification and require export through canalised agency.
• The legal effect and binding nature of advisory Office Memoranda issued by Department of Atomic Energy vis-à-vis DGFT notifications.
• Whether the classification and export restrictions should consider the geological origin and physical characteristics of the garnet exported.
• Whether the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority exceeded the scope of the SCN by relying on materials and grounds not mentioned therein.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

• The goods exported as "Natural Abrasive Grain" or "Abrasive" are correctly classifiable under CTH 2513 2090 and not under CTH 2513 2030, as the exported goods are rock garnet abrasives distinct from Beach Sand Minerals garnet, supported by physical, chemical, and XRD analyses showing absence of monazite and radioactive elements.
• The reliance on Office Memoranda dated 25.02.2020 and 02.06.2021, which were not part of the SCN, is impermissible as it constitutes travelling beyond the scope of the SCN, contrary to settled legal principles that the SCN is the foundation for levy and recovery of duty and penalty.
• The DGFT Notification No. 26/2015-2020 restricts export of Beach Sand Minerals (BSM) garnet and other minerals found in beach sands, not rock garnet mined inland; hence, the Notification does not apply to the exported goods procured from Rajasthan.
• The Office Memoranda issued by the Department of Atomic Energy are advisory in nature and do not have the force of law unless implemented or enforced by DGFT through a notification; therefore, they cannot impose export restrictions or classification changes.
• The classification and export restrictions must be based on the physical characteristics and geological origin of the minerals, distinguishing between beach garnet containing radioactive elements and rock garnet free from such elements.
• The Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority erred in relying on materials and grounds not mentioned in the SCN, violating the principle that adjudication must be confined to the allegations and grounds contained in the SCN.

RATIONALE:

• The Court applied the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, particularly the classification rules under the Customs Tariff Heading.
• The principle that the Show Cause Notice forms the foundation for adjudication was reaffirmed, referencing authoritative precedents holding that authorities cannot travel beyond the SCN in imposing penalties or reclassification.
• The Court interpreted the DGFT Notification No. 26/2015-2020 in light of its plain language and legislative intent, concluding that the restriction applies specifically to Beach Sand Minerals (BSM) garnet and not to inland rock garnet, supported by scientific and technical evidence distinguishing the two.
• The advisory Office Memoranda from the Department of Atomic Energy were held to lack legal sanctity absent enforcement or notification by DGFT, consistent with Supreme Court precedents distinguishing between circulars and binding notifications.
• The Court relied on scientific analyses including XRD, chemical composition, and density reports from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, to determine the nature of the exported goods and their classification.
• The Court considered recent geological research indicating the presence of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) in inland deposits but emphasized that the DGFT Notification does not geographically restrict the minerals but applies generically to specified minerals irrespective of origin.
• The Court underscored the settled legal principle that the intention of the law-making body prevails in case of ambiguity in statutory interpretation, applying this to the export policy and classification issues.

---