Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) That the appellant/exporter availed inadmissible export incentives by way of claiming drawback on the said quantity of 17625.465 MT to the extent of Rs.4,94,01,708/- which is recoverable from them under the provisions of Rule 16 of Customs Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawbacks Rules, 1995 along with interest under Section 75A(2) of the Act.

3.1 The appellant contested the show cause notice stating that the Indian Meat Exports are regulated as per the Raw Meat (Chilled/Frozen) (Quality Control and Inspection), Rules, 1992 made under Section 17 of The Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 which are further amended vide Notification No.-S.O.3024(E) Dated 28.12.2012 issued by Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. The Rules include standards for abattoir, processing plants and for various meat products. Registration of abattoirs and meat processing plants is carried out by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development authority (APEDA). Inspection of the meat processing plants is carried out by a Committee of experts as per the standards laid down in the Meat and Meat Products order (1973) & Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Government of India. During inspection, focus is on hygiene and sanitary conditions maintained by the plant, ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections of each animal, infrastructure, staff hygiene, laboratory facilities, record maintenance etc. The registration of the meat processing plants is renewed every year after a detailed plant inspection by the Committee. According to the current Export and Import Policy of the Government of India, each export consignment is subjected to compulsory microbiological and other tests and a comprehensive pre-shipment inspection certificate is issued by the State Government Veterinarian. Each export consignment is accompanied by the Animal Health Certificate. This certificate also states that meat has been obtained from healthy, disease free livestock, which are free from contagious and infectious disease, including foot and mouth disease and other diseases. The Health Certificate also confirms that the livestock have been subjected to ante-mortem inspection followed by post-mortem examination and that the meat is fit for human consumption, besides having the services of highly qualified and experienced veterinarians, microbiologists etc., employed by the exporting units.

5.8 It is submitted that registration of abattoirs and meat processing plants is carried out by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). Inspection of the meat processing plants is carried out by a Committee of experts as per the standards laid down in the Meat and Meat Products Order (1973) & Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Government of India. During inspection, focus is on hygiene and sanitary conditions maintained by the plant, ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections of each animal, infrastructure, staff hygiene, laboratory facilities, record maintenance etc. The registration of the meat processing plants is renewed every year after a detailed plant inspection by the Committee. According to the current Export and Import Policy of the Government of India, each export consignment is subjected to compulsory microbiological and other tests and a comprehensive pre-shipment inspection certificate is issued by the State Government Veterinarian. Each export consignment is accompanied by the Animal Health Certificate. This certificate also states that meat has been obtained from healthy, disease free livestock, which are free from contagious and infectious diseases, including foot and mouth disease and other diseases. The Health Certificate also confirms that the livestock have been subjected to ante-mortem inspection followed by post-mortem examination and that the meat is fit for human consumption, besides having the services of highly qualified and experienced veterinarians, microbiologists etc., employed by the exporting units.

A careful look at the wordings used in the said conditions indicate that the conditions mentioned at (a) above, part of Note 6 to Chapter 2 of Schedule 2 to ITC(HS) is for merchant exporter. It is not disputed that appellant has their own integrated Abattoir-Cum-Meat Processing Plant duly approved and registered with APEDA and thus they did not obtain/source either finished items or raw/processed meat in their own integrated Abattoir- Cum  Meat Process Plant. The conclusive evidence of this is the certificate issued by Animal Husbandry directorate, UP for each consignment.

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.