Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) All the amendments/changes made in Chapter 2 between August, 2009 and September, 2011 have been incorporated in this notification to make it comprehensive.
(ii) Exporters would now be required to certify both
(a) That the items have been obtained/sourced from an APEDA registered integrated abattoir or from APEDA registered meat processing plant and
(b) That the raw material have been sourced exclusively from APEDA registered integrated abattoir/abattoir.
(iii) Designated Veterinary Authority of the State are now authorized to issue the certificate on the basis of the inspections carried out by Veterinarians duly registered under the Indian Veterinary Council Act 1984 employed by the exporting unit in relevant laboratories.
5.11 Note 6 of The Export Import Policy warranted that exporter is to fulfil the condition by attaching copy of valid APEDA registration certificate with each Shipping Bill and also to submit declaration with each Shipping Bill/Consignment stating that:-
(a) the items exported have been obtained/sourced from an APEDA registered integrated abattoir or from APEDA registered meat processing plant; and
(b) the raw material, means Carcasses, have been sourced exclusively from APEDA registered integrated abattoir/abattoir.

5.17 Further, in absence of goods being available, the order of confiscation is bad ad fit to be set aside as held by Honble Calcutta High Court in the following case:-

Anita International v/s Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta; 1993 (65) ELT 201(Cal).
5.18 Further, the appellants have filed monthly returns with APEDA (the regulatory body) giving details of quantity produced and exported. No objection have ever been raised by APEDA.
6.1 The ld. A.R., Mr D.S.Mann, for the revenue relied on the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Reiterating the findings, he states that the appellant have apparently exported frozen meat by slaughtering more animals per day than approved in the Certificate granted by APEDA and as such, the appellant have illegitimately exported more quantity of frozen meat. Thus, there is a clear indication that a quantity of 2532 MT of frozen meat was produced from un-authorized slaughtering or the excess quantity was procured from non-APEDA sources and exported by the appellant. The ld. Commissioner observed that the appellant might have submitted the APEDA Certificate but the same was invalid for slaughtering of more than 500 animals per day whereas the appellant exported more quantity. Thus, the APEDA Registration Certificate was not valid for such excess quantity exported. This fact was not brought to the notice of the Customs Officer at the time of export. Further under the Certificate granted by APEDA for integrated abattoir cum meat processing plant required the appellant to produce the raw meat by slaughtering the animals in their abattoir and processing of the meat. Thus, the provision of Note 6 applies not only to a meat processing plant who obtain raw meat from APEDA approved outside abattoir but also to integrated abattoir cum meat processing as in the case of the appellant. So far the contention of appellant is concerned, they had applied to the UPPCB for the consent/NOC for increasing the slaughtering capacity to 1000 animals per day, as it was a pre-condition for registration with APEDA. The authority of UPPCB had inspected the unit of the appellant and forwarded the report on 02/02/2011 and in pursuance thereto, the compliance as suggested had been made by the appellant and intimation for the same had been given to the UPPCB. Further, the contention of the appellant that under the provisions of the deemed consent under the Pollution Control Law, they started to slaughter more than 500 animals/buffaloes. The said contention of the appellant was not believed by the Commissioner, appreciating that for export of 170 MT of boneless frozen meat per day, more than 500 buffaloes will be required, but it does not mean that all the animals slaughtered on any day can only be exported on that day. The slaughtering of 2 or 3 days may be clubbed for export, thereby increasing the quantity of export on the following day. There is no stipulation that the maximum quantity sanctioned for a particular day, should be disposed of or cleared on that day only. The different capacities like freezing capacity, chilling capacity, was sanctioned on the basis of chilling facility available, therefore the appellant cannot seek immunity on the ground that they had more sanctioned export capacity and hence, that could have slaughtered more animals per day.

7. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that it is not disputed as to the quantum of frozen meat exported by the appellant. It is also not disputed that the frozen meat was processed and exported from the APEDA approved unit of the appellant. In all the consignments of export, the same were factory stuffed under supervision and sealed by the Excise or the Customs Officials, in the premises of the appellant and all export have taken place from ICD Dadri. It is also not disputed that there was no lacuna in the documents of export having proper health certificates granted by the Authority of the State Government of Uttar Predesh, Animal Husbandry Department. It also not disputed that the appellant received all the remittances for the export. The appellant have filed monthly online returns with APEDA declaring the quantity and value and the country to which exports were made. It is also an admitted fact that as per the registration certificate of APEDA, the slaughter permission approved was 500 animals or buffaloes per day whereas as per the processing capacity (170 MT per day of boneless buffalo frozen meat), the appellant could have utilized the meat of more than 500 buffaloes in view of its installed capacity. The appellants have also led evidences, being Annexure 22 to the appeal memo, wherein they applied to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on 26/9/11 for the enhancement of the slaughtering number of buffaloes along with report on modification in the Environmental Management Plan for the proposed augmentation of the existing meat factory, which was prepared by approved consultant of the Pollution Control Board. In response thereto, the unit of the appellant was inspected by the Pollution Control Authority and vide communication dated 02/11/11 the appellant was directed to comply with certain conditions by the Pollution Control Board and the same was duly complied with under proper intimation dated 9/1/2012, categorically mentioning that the appellant will commence trial runs and if there are any further instructions, the same may be intimated in the meantime.. The ld. Counsel for the appellant, has further demonstrated that under The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, section 7 provides that the consent referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 25 shall unless given or refused earlier, be deemed to have been given unconditionally on the expiry of a period of four months of the making of an application in this behalf, complete in all respects to the State Board. Similarly, Section 21(4) of The AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, provides that within a period of four months after the receipt of the application for consent referred to in sub-section (1), the State Board, shall, by order in writing, and for reasons to be recorded in the order, grant the consent applied for subject to such conditions and for such period as may be specified in the order, or refuse consent. It is an admitted fact that the Pollution Control Board had not refused consent nor made any further suggestions for compliance to be made. Thus, there was deeming consent in favour of the appellant to slaughter and process more than 500 animals/buffaloes on the expiry of four months from the date of application being 26/9/11. In this view of the matter, we find that the whole case of the revenue is misconceived as the same is based on presumption that the appellant could not have processed more than 500 buffaloes per day in view of the Certificate of APEDA. There is no dispute that the slaughtering capacity has to be, prima-facie, approved by the State Pollution Control Board. Further, we find that in the facts of this case, the appellant is entitled to drawback only on the packing materials. Further, there is no dispute of export of packing material along with the frozen meat. In this view of the matter, there is no irregularities in the drawback granted to the appellant pursuant to export of frozen meat for which, the remittance is admittedly been received in convertible foreign exchange. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant will be entitled to consequential benefits.