2020 (3) TMI 1066 - HC - Customs

Denial of MEIS benefit - denial of benefit on the ground that the writ petitioners have omitted to check the Box stating 'Yes', indicating their intention to avail reward under the Scheme, in the specific Box provided in the software intended for uploading details to the web portal of the Central Government - HELD THAT - Even if there exists no claim for the benefit under the MEIS, naturally there will be physical verification with respect to the goods consigned by the exporter. Therefore the details of the shipping as well as the necessary verification preceding the export were already done at that time would clearly indicate the identity of the goods exported. If the identity of the goods exported would reveal that the goods exported are those goods with respect to which the benefit under MEIS is allowable, there is no necessity for further physical verification for deciding the question of allowing the claim. Learned counsel further pointed out that, by virtue of a Circular issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, instruction was given to allow such claims in cases where the exporters had omitted to tick 'Yes' in the portal, only for a limited period of six months from the date of introduction of the Scheme. We do not find any logic in putting such a limitation. As already found by the learned Single Judge, the intention was explicit from other details uploaded in the portal and also from the documents relating to the shipping. Therefore, the omission seems to have been quite inadvertent - There is no justification in denying the claim, based on such an inadvertent omission. In the matter of condoning such an omission, there cannot be a discrimination between exporters who made the claim within six months and those who have raised the claim after six months of introduction of the Scheme. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of export benefit claim under MEIS due to omission in checking the 'Yes' box on the web portal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to the denial of a claim for export benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) as per the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20. The denial was based on the writ petitioners omitting to check the 'Yes' box on the web portal, indicating their intention to avail the reward under the Scheme. The Single Judge found that the default setting in the software was 'No', leading to the omission. However, it was noted that the writ petitioners had clearly expressed their intention to claim the benefit of MEIS in the description of goods and shipping bill. The Single Judge emphasized that the denial based solely on a technical lapse was unjustified, especially when there were clear indications of the exporter's intention to claim the rewards in other details. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of, directing a fresh consideration of the claim by the appellants and the Director General of Foreign Trade, taking into account the exporter's intention as manifested during the export. Customs Authorities were also directed to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' for processing the claim afresh.

The appellants contended that since the 'Yes' box was not checked, necessary verification of the export consignment was not done at the relevant time, making verification impossible now. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that physical verification of the consignment was already done at the time of export, which would reveal the identity of the goods exported. If the exported goods align with those eligible for MEIS benefits, further physical verification is unnecessary for deciding on the claim.

Furthermore, it was highlighted that a Circular by the Director General of Foreign Trade allowed such claims for a limited period of six months from the Scheme's introduction. The Court found no rationale in imposing such a time limit, especially when the exporter's intention was evident from other uploaded details and shipping documents. The inadvertent omission of checking the 'Yes' box should not justify denying the claim, and there should be no discrimination between exporters based on the timing of their claims. Consequently, the Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the writ appeals as there was no identified illegality, error, or impropriety in allowing the writ petitions.