2020 (3) TMI 273 - HC - Customs

Amendment in shipping bills - inadvertant mistake made in the bills - Grant of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefit - HELD THAT - Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. GLOBAL CALCIUM PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EDC) , THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2019 (6) TMI 811 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that Respondents are directed to permit the writ petitioner to make necessary amendments. In the case on hand also, it is the case of the petitioner that only due to inadvertence, 'Yes' was not mentioned in the online platform while filing the shipping bills and the only reason for rejection of the petitioner's application is that no cogent reasons have been given by him for not mentioning 'Yes', while filing the shipping bills in the online platform - In view of the identical facts, this Court is of the considered view that the decision in Global Calcium are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case also. However, since the details of the shipping bills filed by the petitioner have not been disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is made clear that the petitioner will have to satisfy the respondents with regard to the genuineness of the 44 shipping bills to enable them to claim the incentive under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme. The third and fourth respondents are directed to issue no objection certificate to the fifth respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, to enable the petitioner to claim benefits under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme from DGFT, subject to the satisfaction of the third and fourth respondents with regard to the genuineness of the 44 shipping bills submitted by the petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against decision denying Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefit based on omission in shipping bill declaration.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the sixth respondent to deny MEIS benefits for 44 shipping bills due to an omission in declaring intent on the online platform. The petitioner claimed that the goods exported were eligible for MEIS benefits but inadvertently failed to select 'Yes' for the scheme during filing. The petitioner later sought to amend the shipping bills to claim the incentive, citing inadvertence as the reason for the initial omission. The sixth respondent rejected the application, stating the petitioner did not provide sufficient reasons for the omission. The petitioner argued that due to the prevailing E.D.I. system, corrections could not be made, similar to a previous judgment allowing corrections in manual systems under Section 149 of the Customs Act.

The court considered previous judgments in similar cases where corrections were allowed for inadvertent mistakes. The petitioner's counsel cited specific cases where corrections were permitted due to manual system limitations. The court agreed that the petitioner's case of inadvertent omission aligned with the facts of the referenced judgments, emphasizing the inability to rectify errors in the E.D.I. system. However, the court noted that the petitioner must prove the genuineness of the 44 shipping bills to claim MEIS benefits successfully.

The court quashed the decision of the sixth respondent and directed the third and fourth respondents to issue a no objection certificate to the fifth respondent within three weeks. This certificate would enable the petitioner to claim MEIS benefits from DGFT, subject to proving the authenticity of the shipping bills. Upon receiving the no objection certificate, the fifth respondent was instructed to pass incentive orders in favor of the petitioner within three weeks. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.