CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO: 85565 OF 2015 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 11/2014-15 dated 28^th November 2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva.]

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd

4^th Floor State Bank Building N G N Vaidya Marg Fort Mumbai – 400 023 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs (Export)

Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva Tal: Uran, Dist: Raigad - 400707 …Respondent APPEARANCE:

Shri DB Shroff, Senior with Ms Yashmin and Shri Heetkumar, Advocates for the appellant Shri CS Vinod, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO: 85161/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 06/01/2026 DATE OF DECISION: 06/01/2026 PER: C J MATHEW Resolution of this dispute rests on a very limited plea of the direction in the order of remand by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation not having been taken into consideration while disposing off their application, under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962, for amendment of shipping bills.

2. The appellant, M/s Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of ‘industrial valves’, and had been exporting ‘cast body valves’ under ‘duty entitlement passbook (DEPB)’ scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). In 29 shipping bills, filed between 23^rd April 2001 and 17^th July 2001, they, had, in accordance with revision of policy in relation to ‘industrial values’¹, and, that too, of passing existence, had not resorted to the format prescribed for claiming benefit of exports under the scheme. In applications of 14^th July 2009, amendment of these ‘free shipping bills’ to ‘scheme’ shipping bills was sought from the competent authority under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962.

3. The applications were rejected on the finding that the stipulation in the amending empowerment, enabling acceptance of such requests only if supported by documentation existing at the time of exports, could not, in the absence of any reference to the scheme in the records of the impugned transaction, be adhered to. On appeal to the Tribunal, the applications were restored to the original authority to consider the documents that had been submitted instead of mere scrutiny of entries in the shipping bills. In fresh proceedings, and on the very same

1 [Group C-689 at serial no. 61 in Standard Input Output Norms (SION)]

grounds as before, order² of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva rejected the applications leading to this round of litigation.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellants had complied with the letter of the law in complying with the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) amending the relevant column of ‘export goods’ in the Standard Input Output Norm (SION) to ‘forged industrial body valves’ and, under the impression of the entitlement having been restricted to the item understood commercially, had filed shipping bills without the endorsement indicating export under the said scheme till the original nomenclature was restored vide public notice, [no. 44 dated 31st October 2001]. Narrating further developments, he informed that on representation by the appellant that ‘cast body valves’, intended for identical use, did not merit distinguishment from ‘forged industrial valves’, the empowered authority under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) affirmed so in their meeting of 26, [order-in-original no. 11/2014-15 dated 28th November 2020] December 2005 and recommended to the Department of Commerce in communication of 14^th February 2006 which, by public notice⁴, accorded retrospective inclusion in the norms for the interregnum supra. He submitted that the appellant had, unquestioningly, been exporting identical goods before and after the revision with appropriate endorsements in the shipping bills by the customs authorities owing to which the supporting documents of each

4 [no. 96 (RE-2006)/2004-09 dated 5th April 2006]

of the transactions be