Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad REGIONAL BENCH-COURT NO.2 Customs Misc. Application (Stay) No. 10068 of 2026 (On behalf of applicant)

in Customs Appeal No. 10139 of 2026 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-625-25-26 dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad)

Commissioner of CUSTOMS - Mundra Customs ……..Appellant Office of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Mundra, Kutch, Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone, Mundra, KACHCHH, 370421, GUJARAT VERSUS Bright Petrochem India LLP …….Respondent

10th Floor, 1002, Nakshtara Heights, 150 Feet Ring Road Rajkot-360005, APPEARANCE:

Shri Aakash Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE Dr. AJAYA KRISHNA VISHVESHA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MR. SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL )

Final Order No. 10335/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 17.03.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 13.05.2026 SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH The Revenue has filed present appeal along with application for stay of the operation of Order-In-Appeal No. MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-625-25-26 dated 26.12.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had set aside Order-In-Original dated 02.12.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Mundra Customs on incorrect appreciation of facts, evidence and settled legal principles; That he has wrongly relied on Test Reports of CRCL, Vadodara despite same being incomplete, inconclusive and non- compliant with the mandatory parameters prescribed under IS 14314:1995 (RA 2017) and IS 1745:2018 (RA 2023);That for goods to qualify as “Thinner, General Purpose for Synthetic Paints and Varnishes”, strict compliance with the description requirement under clause 4.1 of the said standard is indispensable which provides that the product shall be predominately based on a mixture of Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons; That CRCL Vadodara test reports failed to examine or record any finding regarding compliance with this Clause and did not specify presence or the percentage of Aromatic hydrocarbons in the Test samples.

1.1 The appeal further mentions that CRCL Vadodara Test Reports simultaneously recorded conformity with both the above IS specifications without addressing or resolving mutually exclusive nature of the description required under the two standards which makes the report inherently inconclusive. Such testing is contrary to the binding ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Gastrade International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, wherein it has been held that the goods must be tested strictly in accordance with all parameters prescribed under the relevant IS standards.

1.2 That vide letter dated 22.09.2025, CRCL Vadodara was asked to conduct testing strictly in accordance with prescribed parameters and to furnish clear and conclusive report. In response, they vide letter dated 23.09.2025, reported that the tested parameters matched the specifications of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent 125/240 under IS 1745:2018 as well as those of Thinner, General Purpose for Synthetic Paints and Varnishes under IS 14314:1995. They also reported some additional parameters such as cetane index, kinematic viscosity, Ash content, Density at 15°C, sulphur content, and pour pointed and emphasised on conformity of the samples with Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent 125/240; That one more letter dated 26.09.2025 was sent to CRCL Vadodara to give categorical and unambiguous conclusion keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Apex Courtin M/s Gastrade International case; Vide letter dated 30.09.2025, CRCL Vadodara clarified that based on comprehensive analysis under IS 1745:2018, the product was identified as petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent 125/240, which is prohibited for import except through State Trading Enterprise(s) in terms of Condition (5) of Chapter 27 of the Customs Tariff, 1975.

1.3 In view of persistent failure of CRCL Vadodara to give conclusive