https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217487 Clear admission that the goods were non-basmati rice, coupled with no retraction of the Section 108 statements and no timely request for further testing, justified the customs finding of misdeclaration. The contention that the matter should have been referred to DGFT or sent for additional laboratory examination was rejected because the dispute was one of misdescription, not classification, and the test reports were properly relied upon. The redemption fine and penalties for attempted export of non-basmati rice as basmati rice were also left undisturbed, as the appellate reduction was already lenient and supported by the goods' market value, the attempted export, and the surrounding circumstances. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2013 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217487 Clear admission that the goods were non-basmati rice, coupled with no retraction of the Section 108 statements and no timely request for further testing, justified the customs finding of misdeclaration. The contention that the matter should have been referred to DGFT or sent for additional laboratory examination was rejected because the dispute was one of misdescription, not classification, and the test reports were properly relied upon. The redemption fine and penalties for attempted export of non-basmati rice as basmati rice were also left undisturbed, as the appellate reduction was already lenient and supported by the goods' market value, the attempted export, and the surrounding circumstances. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 01 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217487