DEPB entitlement for fragrant polypropylene mats must be tested under the export-date policy, not later restrictive amendments.

Fragrant polypropylene mats were treated as falling within the then-existing DEPB entry for polypropylene mats, because the policy in force on the export date governed entitlement and a later amendment carving out fragrant mats at a lower rate could not be applied retrospectively. DEPB credit at 20% was therefore admissible. The value cap and PMV objections were also rejected, as the brand declaration had been made in the shipping bills and PMV had already been examined by the competent DGFT authority. The Customs authorities could not deny the benefit on those grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether fragrant polypropylene mats were covered by the then-existing DEPB entry for polypropylene mats and entitled to DEPB credit at 20%; (ii) whether the value cap and PMV objection could be applied to deny or reduce the DEPB benefit.

Issue (i): whether fragrant polypropylene mats were covered by the then-existing DEPB entry for polypropylene mats and entitled to DEPB credit at 20%.

Analysis: The relevant DEPB schedule, as it stood at the time of export, contained only the entry for polypropylene mats. Fragrant polypropylene mats were treated as only a sub-class of polypropylene mats, and a later amendment separately carving them out at a lower rate showed that the later change could not govern the earlier period. The benefit therefore had to be tested under the policy in force on the date of export.

Conclusion: The export product was covered by the then-existing entry, and DEPB credit at 20% was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the value cap and PMV objection could be applied to deny or reduce the DEPB benefit.

Analysis: The record showed that the brand declaration required under the Exim Policy was made in the shipping bills, and the question of PMV had already been examined by the DGFT authorities. On that basis, the objections based on value cap and PMV were not accepted as a ground to interfere with the DEPB grant.

Conclusion: The value cap could not be invoked to deny the DEPB benefit, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The existing DEPB policy, as applicable on the export date, entitled the assessee to the claimed benefit, and the Customs authorities could not deny it on the grounds urged by the Department.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the policy in force on the date of export covers the goods within an existing entry, a later restrictive amendment cannot be used to deny the benefit for earlier exports, and administrative objections already examined by the competent policy authority cannot by themselves displace that entitlement.

---