UNITED EXPORTS Vs. C.C.
LAWS(CE)-2015-7-11
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 17,2015

United Exports Appellant
VERSUS
C.C. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

H.K.THAKUR,MEMBER (T) - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 25 -26/2014 Cus/Commr(A)/KDL Dated 05/02/2014 passed by Commissioner(Appeals) Kandla as first appellate authority. The issue in the present appeal is whether exported goods were Basmati Rice as per Serial No. 93(RE -2007)/2004 -2009 Dated 01/04/2008.
(2.)Mrs. Prabjyoti K Chadha (Advocate) appealing on behalf of the appellant argued that Basmati Rice, including Pusa Basmati -1121, means rice having grain length of more than 6.61mm and length to breadth ratio of the grain to be more than 3.5. It was her case that the grain size in the existing notification No. was substituted by notification No. Dated 17/08/2010. Learned advocate strongly argued that getting the samples of Rice Tested from Egg mark Testing Centres is nowhere prescribed under notification No. Dated 01/04/2008. It was therefore strongly argued by her that DGFT Policy Circular No. 37/2004 -2009 Dated 13/09/2008, mentioned in para -8.2 of OIA Dated 05/02/2014, has been wrongly relied upon by the first appellate authority. That even as per this circular also the cases where any variation is found the same were required to be intimated to DGFT for necessary action and remedial measures. That if a notification can be varied as per the policy circulars issued by DGFT then there was no necessity of amending the parameters of rice grain under notification No. Dated 17/08/2010. Learned advocate relied upon the following Case Laws where same issue has been decided in favour of other rice exporters: -
"(i) Shri Jagdamba Agrico Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [ : 2014 (307) E.L.T. 764 (Tri. -Ahmd.)

(ii) Global Agro Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Noida [ : 2013 (290) D.L.T. 717 (Tri. -Del.)

(iii) HRMM Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla : 2013 (292) E.L.T. 68 Tri. -Ahmd.)"

(3.)SHRI S. Shukla (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that similar case based on the test carried out by Eggmark Laboratory was upheld by this bench in the case of Parvaz Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [ : 2013 (294) E.L.T. 233 (Tri. -Ahmd)].
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.