Bombay High Court
Ravi DoshiversusUnion of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to obtain the ARN under the exemption notification, and the Ministry’s refusal is unlawful.
Summary
The petitioner, White Line International, an importer of steel tubes, sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to compel the Ministry of Steel and the Union of India to allow generation of an Automatic Registration Number (ARN) on the Steel Import Monitoring System (SIMS) portal and to waive demurrage charges. The dispute arose because the Ministry, despite issuing notifications on 19 February 2026 and 8 April 2026 that exempted certain steel imports from the Quality Control Order (QCO) and set a 75‑day validity for ARN, denied the petitioner’s ARN application filed on 3 July 2026. The petitioner argued that the exemption notification created a vested right and that the ARN could be obtained within the time‑frame prescribed by the 19 February notification. The respondents contended that the exemption applied only to QCO compliance and that ARN had to be generated before 30 June 2026, which the petitioner missed. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Southern Petrochemical Industries and Bombay Chemical) and interpreting exemption notifications broadly, held that the petitioner was entitled to the ARN as the goods satisfied the exemption criteria and the timing complied with the February notification. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10 August 2026 was quashed and the petition was allowed in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the exemption notification dated 8 April 2026 creates a vested right for the petitioner to obtain an ARN on the SIMS portal.
- Whether the requirement to generate the ARN must be fulfilled before 30 June 2026 for the exemption to apply.
- Whether the Ministry of Steel’s refusal to grant the ARN violates the provisions of the notifications and the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016.
Legislation cited
- Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016
- Customs Act
Subjects
- ARN
- SIMS
- Steel import
- Quality Control Order
- Exemption notification
- Article 226
- Writ of certiorari
- Writ of mandamus
- Demurrage
- Bureau of Indian Standards Act
- Customs Act
Judgment
wp 4476-26-J.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN MACHHINDRA
KADAM WRIT PETITION NO. 4476 OF 2026
Date: 2026.10.10
17:24:35 +0530
White Line International
a proprietorship concern of Ravi Doshi
having its address at 25/3,
Lakalala Building, Office No.67,
1st Floor, Kumbharwada,
Mumbai-400 004. … Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
2. Ministry of Steel
3rd Floor, GPOA-3 Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi-110023
3. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust
Nhava Seva, Uran, Navi Mumbai
Navi Mumbai-400 707
4. Maersk Logistic & Services India Pvt. Ltd.
having its registered Office at Block Nos.5-18,
Sector-6, Dongiri Warehousing complex,
Navi Mumbai-400 707.
5. Namsung Shipping Company Limited
C/o. Oasis Shipping Private Limited
102, Technopolis Knowledge Park,
Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri (W),
Mumbai-400 093.
6. Hind Terminal Private Limited
Survey No.170/1, Taluka Uran,
Chirner, Raigad, Maharashtra-410 206.
Amk 1/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
7. Deputy Commissioner of Customs Department
Old Custom House, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.
8. Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House,
Nhava Sheva, Taluka-Uran, District-Raigad,
Maharashtra-400 707. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Karl K. Shroff a/w. Ms. Shriya Mehta i/b Akshay Pawar for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Ram Ochani a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent No.1, 2 &
8.
Mr. Subhash A. Bhalwal a/w. Mr. Pritesh Haridas Bodekar i/b Vyas &
Bhalwal for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Kayush Zaiwalla a/w. Mrs. Apurva Pohonerkar Mehta and Mr.
Anuj Hande i/b ANB Legal for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Ram Jay Narayan for Respondent No.5.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 9th OCTOBER, 2026.
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.)
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeks the following substantive reliefs:-
“(a) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue Writ of
Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ Order or Directions calling for the
records papers and proceedings related to the Petitioner
case and after going into the legality and proprietary
thereof to set aside or quash Order dated 10th August,
Amk 2/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
2026 annexed as “Exhibit-Q” hereinabove passed by the
Respondent No. 1 and 2.
(b) This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ Order or Directions directing
Respondent No. 1 and 2 to enable the Petitioner to
generate the Automatic Registration Number (“ARN”) on
the SIMS Portal, thereby facilitating the clearance of the
said consignments from the Port or alternatively to permit
the Petitioner to import/clear the consignments without
the Respondents insisting or any Quality Certificate under
the QCO.
(c) This Hon'ble court be pleased to direct and order that
Respondent Nos.3 to 6 waive the demurrage and
clearance charges claimed from the Petitioner or
alternatively direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to bear the
demurrage/clearance charges.”
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is an
importer of steel tubes and pipes under ITC HS Code 7304. Due to
restrictions under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, (for
short ‘BIS Act’), respondent No.2-Ministry of Steel issued directions
requiring a test certificate (QCO) under the Steel and Steel Products
(Quality Control) Order 2020.
3. In brief, the challenge of the petitioner is to the impugned
order dated 10th August, 2026, whereby respondent No.2 declined to
Amk 3/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
make available to the petitioner the benefit of Notifications dated
19th February, 2026 and 8th April, 2026.
4. Respondent No.2 vide Notification dated 19 th February,
2026, prescribed a requirement for importers of steel products to
obtain an Advance Registration Number (“ARN”) on the Steel Import
Monitoring System (“SIMS”) not earlier than the 60 th and not later
than 3rd day before the expected arrival of the consignment.
Condition No.4 of this Notification for obtaining ARN specifically
provides the ARN generated will remain valid for 75 days. Vide
Notification dated 8th April, 2026, respondent No.2 exempted the
mandatory compliance with the QCO for steel imports covered by
Bills of Lading having a “Shipped on Board” dated on or before 30 th
June, 2026. The petitioner had imported consignments from:-
(a) Thailand vide Bills of Lading dated 27 th June, 2026
at Exhibit-J, Page 118 and Sr. No.1 and 2, Page 1 and 2
respectively of Convivence Compilation. All these bills of
landing provided for shipped on board dated 27 th June,
2026 i.e. prior to 30th June, 2026 in compliance with
notification of 8th April, 2026.
(b) Ukraine vide Bill of Lading dated 26th May, 2026
Amk 4/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
with shipped on board dated 26th May, 2026 i.e. prior to
30th June, 2026 in compliance with notification of 8 th
April, 2026.
5. The tracking report for containers from Thailand showed
the expected date of arrival 12th July, 2026. The tracking report for
Ukraine consignment showed the expected date of arrival 27 th July,
2026. In accordance with the above notifications, the petitioner
applied for generation of ARN on 3rd July, 2026. The ARN could not
be generated, though the application was within time under the
above notifications. The petitioner therefore lodged complaint on
Central Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring Systems
(CPGRAMS) on 9th July, 2026 which was unsuccessful. The
petitioner then filed an Appeal on CPGRAMS on 31 st July, 2026
which culminated in the impugned order dated 10th August, 2026.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the refusal to permit the generation of ARN is contrary to the
Ministry’s own notifications which are not withdrawn till date. It is
submitted that till the notification is withdrawn, the same would
continue to operate. Learned counsel relied on a decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Southern Petrochemical Industries Co.
Amk 5/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
Ltd. Vs. Electricity Inspector & ETIO & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 447.
7. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bombay Chemical (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE (1995 Supp (2)
SCC 646 in support of the proposition that one of the settled
principles of construction of an exemption notification is that it
strictly, but once goods is found to satisfy the test by which it falls in
the exemption notification then it cannot be excluded from it by
applying or construing such notification narrowly.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the
present no reliefs are claimed against respondent No.4 or respondent
No.8. Therefore though respondent Nos.4 and 8 have filed the
Affidavit-in-Replies we have not dealt with the same.
9. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Ochani for
Respondent Nos.1,2 and 8 who opposed the petition. We have
perused the pleadings and the materials on record. Mr. Ochani
invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8 to oppose the petition.
10. At the outset, it would be pertinent to extract the
notification dated 19th February, 2026, issued by respondent No.2
prescribing a requirement for importers of steel products to obtain
Amk 6/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
ARN on the SIMS Portal not earlier than the 60 th and not later than
3rd day before the expected arrival of the consignment. The
Notification dated 19th February, 2026 reads thus:-
“No. S-21022/9/2025-TRADE-TAX(2)
Government of India
Ministry of Steel
Trade & Taxation Division
*****
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated the 19th February, 2026.
NOTICE
In supersession of this Ministry’s Notice of even no. dated
13.06.2025, 04.08.2025 and 10.09.2025, the advance
registration period to apply for registration on the Steel Import
Monitoring System (SIMS) Portal for import of all steel products,
except items covered under specific HS Codes of Heading 7204
of ITC (HS), 2022 and import from SEZ/EOU to DTA, will be as
under:
Country Period
Nepal, Bhutan and Not arlier than 60th day and not
Sri Lanka later than 2nd day before the
expected date of arrival of import
consignment
All Countries except Not earlier than 60th day and not
Nepal, Bhutan and later than 3rd day before the
Sri Lanka expected date of arrival of import
consignment
2. The advance registration period for import of items
covered under specific HS codes of heading 7204 of ITC (HS),
2022 would be ‘not earlier than 60 th day and not later than 2nd
day before the expected date of arrival of import consignment’.
Amk 7/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
3. Further, the advance registration period for import of
items from SEZ/EOU to DTA would be ‘not earlier than 60 th day
and not later than 2nd day before the expected date of arrival of
import consignment.’
4. The Automatic Registration Number thus generated shall
remain valid for a period of 75 days.
5. This will be effective from 20.02.2026.
(Deepak Kumar Sah)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tel: 26773360”
11. It would also be relevant to reproduce the notification
dated 8th April, 2026, by which respondent No.2 exempted the
mandatory compliance with the QCO for steel imports covered by
Bills of Lading having a “Shipped on Board” date on or before 30 th
June, 2026. The same reads thus:-
“F.No. S-20011/15/2024-TECH-Part(2)
Ministry of Steel
Government of India
Technical Division
GPOA-3, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi
Dated : 08th April, 2026
ORDER
In continuation to this Ministry’s Order of even number
dated 20.11.2025 and in pursuance to the decision taken by the
Competent Authority, the ITC-HS Codes mentioned in Annexure I
are exempted from mandatory compliance of QCO issued by
Government of India.
Amk 8/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
2. The mandatory adherence requirement of QCO for the
aforesaid ITC-HS Codes shall be exempted for imports of steel
products with Bill of lading having shipped on board dated on or
before 30.06.2026.
(G. Sarathy Raja)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
Tel: 24155780
Email: [email protected]”
12. The respondents contend that successive exemptions
from mandatory compliance with the Quality Control Order were
granted upon representations from the trade seeking a grace period,
by orders dated 6th October, 2025, 20th November, 2025 and 8th Apri,
2026, extending the exemption up to 30 th June, 2026. Thus,
according to Mr. Ochani the final cut-off date was expressly
stipulated and notified nearly three months in advance, thereby
providing the trade with an adequate transitional period. The
contention of the respondents is that the exemption was confined to
compliance with the Quality Control Order and did not dispense with
the requirement of registration under SIMS. In terms of the Notice
dated 19th February, 2026, an importer was required to obtain
registration not earlier than 60 days and not later than three days
before the expected arrival of the consignment, and the ARN so
generated remained valid for 75 days. It is the stand of the
Amk 9/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
respondents that an importer seeking the benefit of the exemption
was required to register under the Non-QCO import procedure while
the transitional exemption subsisted.
13. It is not in dispute that the Bill of Lading so far as the
Ukraine is concerned is dated 26th May, 2026 and the expected date
of arrival was 26th July, 2026. In respect of the consignments from
Thailand, the Bills of Lading were dated 27 th June, 2026 and the
expected date of arrival was 12th July, 2026. The respondents
contend that registration was available for the Ukraine consignment
for more than five weeks before the cut-off date and was also
available for the Thailand consignments before the exemption
expired. In the say of the respondents, the relevant purchase
contracts were entered into after 8 th April, 2026, when the final cut-
off date had already been notified. It is submitted that the petitioner
is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification as the
petitioner did not register either of the consignments in question on
or before 30th June, 2026.
14. The petitioner first approached the Portal on 3 rd July,
2026. According to the respondents, the petitioner should have
approached the Portal before the expiry of the transitional period.
Amk 10/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
This according to the respondents is the reason for denying the
petitioner the benefit of exemption notification.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Southern Petrochemical
Industries Co. Ltd. (supra) held that right of exemption granted by a
valid notification gives rise to an accrued and vested right, and is not
a mere concession defeasible by the Government. In a case where
the right to exemption of tax for a fixed period has accrued and the
conditions for exemption have also been fulfilled, the withdrawal of
that exemption cannot affect the already accrued right, unless the
statute provides otherwise. Till a notification is withdrawn, the same
would continue to operate.
16. So far as the order dated 8th April, 2026 is concerned, the
same clearly records that the goods are exempted from mandatory
compliance of QCO issued by the Government of India. Clause 2
thereunder provides that the mandatory adherence requirement of
QCO for the said goods shall be exempted for imports of steel
products with Bill Lading having shipped on board dated on or
before 30th June, 2026.
17. There is no dispute that the goods imported by the
petitioner are entitled to the exemption provided they satisfy the test
Amk 11/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
therein. The goods fall under the category stipulated under the
exemption notification. The notification cannot be construed
narrowly. The exemption notification has to be construed broadly
and widely.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bombay Chemical (P)
Ltd. (supra) in paragraph 9 held thus:-
“9. Item No. 18 which was added in 1978 grants
exemption to the categories of goods which can be
classified as insecticides, pesticides, weedicides or
fungicides. They have to be understood in broad sense.
The reasoning of the Tribunal that if an expression is
capable of a broader and a narrower meaning then it is
the latter which could be preferred does not appear to
be correct. Where entries are descriptive of category of
goods they have certain characteristics. Therefore, when
a question arises whether a particular good is covered in
any category or not, it has to be examined if it satisfies
the characteristic which go to make it a good of that
category. And whether in trade circle it is understood as
such and if it is a goods of technical nature then
whether technically it falls in the one or the other
category. Once it is found that a particular good
satisfies the test then issue which arises for
consideration is whether it should be construed broadly
or narrowly. One of the settled principles of
construction of an exemption notification is that it
Amk 12/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
should be construed strictly, but once a goods is found
to satisfy the test by which it falls in the exemption
notification then it cannot be excluded from it by
resorting to applying or construing such notification
narrowly. Item 18 is an exemption notification. As
stated earlier, it mentions broad categories of goods
which are entitled to exemption. Once a goods is found
to fall even narrowly in any of these categories, there
appears no justification to exclude it. The test of strict
construction of exemption notification applies at the
entry, that is, whether a particular goods is capable of
falling in one or the other category but once it falls then
the exemption notification has to be construed broadly
and widely. Each of the words insecticides, pesticides,
fungicides or weedicides are understood both in the
technical and common parlance as having broad
meaning. Therefore, if any goods or items satisfy the
test of being covered in either of the expression, then it
is entitled to exemption. The broad and basic
characteristic for exemption under the notification is
that the goods must have the property of killing germs
and bacteria, insects or pest and it should be
understood in the common parlance as well as being
covered in one of the broad categories mentioned in the
notification. Since the goods produced by the appellant
are capable of killing bacteria and fungi which too, is
covered in the expressions ‘pesticide’ and ‘fungicide’
there appears no reason to exclude the goods from the
Amk 13/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
aforesaid notification.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. Further, in the present case, it is seen that the goods
which are exempted for imports from the requirement of QCO clearly
indicates the Bill of Lading having shipped on board on or before 30 th
June, 2026. The Bill of lading having shipped on board is admittedly
before 30th June, 2026.
20. The stand of the respondents that the ARN should have
been generated before 30th June, 2026 for the exemption notification
to apply is not at all supported by any of the provisions of the
Customs Act or the conditions laid down in the notification for
claiming exemption. The notification dated 19 th February, 2026 only
provides the requirement that the same should be not earlier than
60th day and not later than 3rd day before the expected date of arrival
of import consignment. The ARN, thus generated is to remain valid
for the period of 75 days. There is thus no justification at all for the
respondents to impose the condition that the petitioner had to
register the consignment in question on or before 30 th June, 2026.
The contention that the petitioner approached the Portal on 3 rd July,
2026 after expiry of transitional period for denying the exemption is
Amk 14/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
completely unjustified.
21. No doubt, the decision in Commissioner of Customs
(Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. [(2018) 9 SCC 1] provides
that an exemption is to interpreted strictly and the burden of proving
applicability lies on a person claiming it. In the present case, both
the parameters are satisfied even if the exemptions are considered
strictly on a reading of plain terms which are applicable to the
petitioner’s claim. Insisting that the registration should be within the
transitional period is not a requirement provided by law or the
notifications. In fact, the notification dated 19 th February, 2026
provides otherwise. We therefore have no difficulty in holding that
once the petitioner falls within the terms of the above notifications,
the same would have to be given full effect. There is no dispute that
the Bills of Lading having shipped the said goods on board was on or
before 30th June, 2026. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the
petitioner applying for the ARN on 3rd July, 2026 as the goods which
were shipped on or before 30th June, 2026 were to arrive on 12th
July, 2026 in one case and the other on 26 th July, 2026. Thus, the
petitioner applied for obtaining the ARN within the time frame
stipulated by the notification dated 19th February, 2026.
Amk 15/16
wp 4476-26-J.doc
22. The petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b). The impugned order dated 10 th August, 2026 is
quashed and set aside.
23. No order as to costs.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 16/16
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.