2020 (2) TMI 1266 - HC - Customs

Amendment in shipping bills - Benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) - petitioner inadvertently opted for No instead of Yes in the shipping bills - Corrections to be made is denied - HELD THAT - This very issue as to whether the inadvertent error of not claiming benefit under the MEIS was fatal to the claim itself has come to be considered by learned single Judges of this Court in M/S. PASHA INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2019 (2) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where reliance was placed in the case of in the case of SAINT GOBAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2018 (11) TMI 536 - KERALA HIGH COURT , to hold that petitioner shall produce the said NOC before the 4th respondent and seek the benefits from the 4th respondent. The error in not stating 'YES' to availment of the Scheme, such error, admittedly being inadvertent and Mr.Rajinish Pathiyil fairly does not dispute, this should not stand in the way of the consideration of entitlement on merits - the benefit of the Scheme would be available to the petitioner conditional upon verification and acceptance of such claim by the DGFT. The impugned order rejecting the request for amendment is quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's inadvertent omission in claiming benefit under the MEIS scheme while filing a shipping bill. Rejection of the petitioner's request for amending the bill by the second respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in exporting leather shoes, filed a shipping bill claiming duty drawback but omitted to select 'YES' for availing the MEIS benefit. The petitioner sought to amend the bill, as advised by the DGFT, to rectify the error. However, the second respondent rejected the request for amendment, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

The court considered the issue of whether the inadvertent error in not claiming MEIS benefit was fatal to the claim. Referring to previous judgments, the court noted that such errors should not hinder the consideration of entitlement on merits. The court emphasized that the benefit of the MEIS scheme is subject to verification and acceptance by the DGFT, and the error should not obstruct the assessment of entitlement.

Based on the discussion, the court quashed the impugned order rejecting the request for amending the shipping bill and issued a mandamus to the second respondent to make the necessary amendments as requested by the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed in this matter.