TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The relevant facts that arise for consideration in all these appeals is, that all the appellants had filed shipping bills for export of basmati rice/pusa basmati rice. The said consignments were examined by the officers of dock examination and representative samples were drawn and forwarded to Chief Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Mumbai for analysis to ascertain whether the samples meet specifications of the basmati rice; as the appellant had sought the benefit of DGFT Notification No.55(RE-2008)/2004-2009, dt.05.11.2008 as amended by the Notification No.57/2009/14, dt.17.08.2010. The requirement for analysis arose as the said notification laid down the conditions as to the grain of rice sought to be exported. The samples were analys....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e confiscation, hence the confiscation as ordered by the adjudicating authority in other cases also need to be set aside. It is his submission that the Revenue is contesting confiscation. In these cases having not filed an appeal in case of M/s Green Village Agros Pvt.Ltd, the Revenue cannot take a different stand in the other appeal. It is his submission that confiscation and the consequent redemption fine and penalty on the appellant is not justified or sustainable as the DGFT is the final regulatory authority so far as EXIM policy is concerned. It is his submission that the notifications which are relied upon by the Revenue authorities clearly state that basmati/pusa basmati rice would be, grain of the said rice should have specific leng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of India had put restriction and only permitted for export of basmati rice. It is his submission that to come to a conclusion whether the consignment of the rice which has been entered for export is basmati or non-basmati rice, the samples needs to be tested by experts and the expert in the case in hand are Agmark authorities. Giving a little background of the said Agmark authority, it is his submission that they are the final authorities on any specification/compliance of the agricultural products. He would submit that the samples which were sent to Agmark authority for testing, on testing it was reported that the samples though found to comply with the length of the grain and the ratio of the length to breadth of the grain, they failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om time to time cannot be applied even if the grain of rice meets certain parameters. 5. At the conclusion of hearing on 24.04.2014, we granted liberty to both sides to file written submissions. The said written submissions are taken on record and considered by us. 6. We heard both sides at length, perused the records and considered the written submissions. 7. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant herein who had carted the consignment of rice and filed shipping bills as the same to be basmati rice and claimed the benefit of DGFT Notification No.55(RE-2008)/2004-2009, dt.05.11.2008 as amended by Notification No.57/2009/14, dt.17.08.2010 are basmati rice or otherwise. 8. We find that for proper appreciation of the issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notification even does not indicate any admixture to be considered for the purpose of getting benefit of the said notification. On the face of such clear notification, the Revenue authorities have held that though the export consignments meet the specification of the length and the ratio of length to breadth, has failed the admixture content, as the admixture content is more than limit. We do not find any such condition put in the notification, hence the Revenue's argument on point of admixture is incorrect. 12. We find that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in an identical issue in the case of Global Agro Impex (supra) has laid down the following ratio:- "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the above reproduced ratio covers the issue squarely in favour of the appellant. 13. Now, we consider the case laws cited by the ld.Departmental Representative in the case of Parvaz Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Phonix Traders (supra). On perusal of the said case laws, we find that in both the cases, the appellants therein had not claimed the benefit of DGFT notification as was claimed in these cases. Since there was no claim of benefit of said notifications before the Customs authority, the Customs authority had drawn the samples and forwarded the same to Agmark authority who analyses the samples vis-`-vis specification of Basmati rice, as per Agmark standards. The Customs authority therein had not referred the samples to the Agmark autho....