TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the sides. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they had exported Basmati Rice and had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 55 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dtd 5.11.2008, as modified by Notification 57/2009-2014 dtd 17.8.2010. For better appreciation, the Notification No 55 is reproduced below: NOTIFICATION NO. 55 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER, 2008 S.O.(E) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22 of 1992) and also read with Para 1.3 and Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments to Notification No.93(RE-2007)/2004-2009 dated 1st April, 2008 read with Notification No. 37 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 3rd September, 2008 and Notification No. 38 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 5th September, 2008 and Notification No. 39 dated 16th September, 2008:- Sl. No. Tariff Item HS Code Unit Item Description Export Policy Nature of Restriction 1 2 3 4 5 6 45A 1006 10 1006 10 00 1006 20 00 1006 30 1006 30 10 1006 30 90 1006 40 00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relied upon the specifications under AGMARK standards. He contends that this was not called for as the Notification does not prescribe the same. He also submitted that the goods were exported and the assessments were finalised and therefore confiscation and redemption fine cannot be sustained in the instant case. He also argued that penalty under Section 114AA is not imposable as the same was introduced to penalize fraudulent exporters. He drew the attention of the Bench to Para 27 of the Standing Committee on Finance (2005-2006) 14th Lok Sabha, 27th Report, which discuss about the rationale for introduction of Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The Learned Counsel also filed a written compilation including case laws. He drew the attention of the Bench particularly to the specific decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Jagdamba Agrico Export Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Kandla -2014(307)ELT.764 (Tri. Ahmd). 5. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that at column No 4 of Sl. No 45AA, of the Notification No 55 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, gives the description of the item allowed to be exported under the said Notification as: "Basmati Rice includin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argument of the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue that these specification of "Nature of Restrictions" is applicable to the goods which is described under column 4 of the Notification, which against Sr. No 45AA specifies "Basmati Rice including Pusa Basmati 1121". It, therefore, undoubtedly means that the goods allowed to be exported under this Notification has to be Basmati Rice. We find that the original Adjudicating Authority has gone into the great detail whether the impugned goods are Basmati Rice or not. He has quoted the AGMARK specifications at Para 12.4 of the impugned Order in Original. For clarity, the same is reproduced below: "Grade Specification (quality) of Basmati parboiled rice (for export only) A) General characteristics: 1. The grains shall be long slender of creamy-white, brownish or grayish colour and translucent. 2. The rice: a) Shall be the dried matured kernels of Oryza sativa L.; and have uniform size, shape and colour; b) Shall possess in a marked degree the natural fragrance characteristic of Basmati rice both in the raw and cooked state; c) Shall not have been artificially col....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Learned Counsel, the decision of the Tribunal was based on the decision of Global Agro Impex case, and on the grounds the Learned Authorised Representative is not able to point out any notification from DGFT which prescribes that the AGMARK standards have to be applied to decide whether the goods are Basmati Rice or otherwise. In the instant case, the DGFT policy circular (Supra) has clearly indicted that the same may be done. Hence, the said case law is of no help to the appellant. Moreover, the goods are described in the Customs Notifications (Supra) as "Basmati Rice", and therefore Customs Authorities are fully justified to verify the impugned goods are Basmati Rice or not. We, therefore, find no illegality in the orders of the lower authorities in the said respect. 9. As regards confiscation, we find that the goods were exported by the appellant claiming the exemption under Notification No 55 (RE-2008)/2004-2009. It is observed that the samples were drawn and sent for test. It is seen that the benefit of the Notification rests upon meeting certain parameters which can only be ascertained by testing samples. However, the goods were allowed to be exported, pending the test ....