https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263476 The Court upheld the Additional Commissioner of Customs' decision to confiscate goods and impose penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, due to the attempted export of non-Basmati Rice, prohibited under DGFT notification. The Court found the samples did not conform to Basmati Rice standards, as per the Basmati Rules, and were bound by the Agmark Testing Centre reports. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the CESTAT's order and restoring the original decision, with no order as to costs. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263476 The Court upheld the Additional Commissioner of Customs' decision to confiscate goods and impose penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, due to the attempted export of non-Basmati Rice, prohibited under DGFT notification. The Court found the samples did not conform to Basmati Rice standards, as per the Basmati Rules, and were bound by the Agmark Testing Centre reports. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the CESTAT's order and restoring the original decision, with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263476