2018 (1) TMI 834 - HC - Customs

Amendment of Shipping Bill - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation dated 09.11.2017 was sent to the first respondent by registered post and that it would have reached the office of the first respondent within two or three days of dispatch - Held that - the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.11.2017 requesting for issuance of a no objection certificate for amending MEIS Reward Detail - No to MIES Reward Detail - Yes and such a consideration shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Denial of benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) due to technicalities.
3. Jurisdiction of the proper officer for considering requests for amending shipping bills.
4. Delay in considering representations by the first respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought direction to amend shipping bills filed under the MEIS scheme due to an inadvertent error in not selecting the correct option online. Citing precedents emphasizing liberal construction of export incentive schemes, the petitioner argued against denial of benefits due to technicalities.

2. The application for amendment was initially sent to the second respondent, who redirected it to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EDC). The Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioner to approach a different office, indicating a jurisdictional issue. The petitioner subsequently sent a representation to the first respondent reiterating their request, leading to the current petition before the High Court.

3. The Court, after hearing both parties, directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation promptly. The judgment emphasized granting a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative before making a decision on amending the MEIS reward details from 'No' to 'Yes'. The Court specified a two-week timeline for the first respondent to act upon the directive, highlighting the importance of timely consideration in such matters.

4. The legal proceedings concluded with the disposal of the writ petition, without imposing any costs on either party. The judgment focused on ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions while addressing the petitioner's request for amending the shipping bills to avail MEIS benefits, underscoring the significance of proper administrative review and decision-making processes in customs matters.