9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 696 - HC - CustomsRewards under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme ('MEIS') - Seeking completion of process of sanctioning and grant of the reward - export of Cryogenic Tanks and Vessels and such other specially manufactured items - denial of rewards under MEIS on the ground that petitioner had not intimated the intent for claiming MEIS benefits initially on their shipping bills - eligibility as per para 3.14(a) of the HBP 2015-20 announced on 01.04.2015 for MEIS rewards denied - HELD THAT - Mandatory declaration of intent is made a necessity for claiming reward under the MEIS under any of the schemes for export shipment. Such declaration is a must and in case of shipping bills other than free shipping bills, such declaration was made mandatory w.e.f. 01.06.2015. It is also vital to notice that the SEZ Devision, Department of Commerce in its communication dated 29.09.2016 has declared that though window for manual shipping bills for claiming MEIS benefit was allowed for the period between 01.04.2015 to 31.05.2015 due to short term problem in on-line filing, the condition for intimating the intent for claiming MEIS benefits had not been waived and the intent must have been clear for claiming the benefits. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had not intimated the intent for claiming MEIS benefits initially on their shipping bills dated 30.03.2015. There is so much of impact prevailing on the export being made from SEZ unit as it was from Kandla SEZ that the export has been made by the petitioner even after the petitioner was granted license in the month of December for having exported the goods worth 17,23,000 US , there was still a confusion as to whether this mandate would be applicable in case of free shipping bills and whether any export made by Kandla SEZ would be covered. Noticing that the declaration of intent on the shipping bill for claiming the benefit under the reward scheme is made mandatory w.e.f 01.06.2015 under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 or the Handbook of Procedure, 2015-20, in wake of the aforementioned decision, there could be no exclusion of SEZ or non-EDI Port unit for availing the benefit. The decision of this Court in case of M/S. RAJ AND COMPANY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2021 (2) TMI 1101 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where the Court has emphasized on procedurality not to hamper the substantive right of the party. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of MEIS benefits due to lack of declaration of intent on shipping bills. 2. Applicability of the mandatory declaration of intent for SEZ units. 3. Procedural infractions versus substantive benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures (HBP). 4. Interpretation of Circulars and Public Notices regarding MEIS benefits. 5. Judicial precedents on the amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of MEIS Benefits Due to Lack of Declaration of Intent on Shipping Bills: The petitioner challenged the denial of MEIS benefits based on technical objections and procedural infractions, arguing that substantial benefits had accrued and were available in their favor. The petitioner exported goods under shipping bill no. 3509 dated 30-03-2015 but did not declare the intent to claim MEIS benefits on the shipping bill, which became mandatory from 01-06-2015. The respondents denied the benefits, stating that the declaration of intent was necessary even for shipping bills filed before 01-06-2015. 2. Applicability of the Mandatory Declaration of Intent for SEZ Units: The petitioner’s unit, located at Kandla SEZ, argued that the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 and Handbook of Procedures did not exclude SEZ units from availing MEIS benefits. The respondents contended that SEZ exports under free shipping bills required a declaration of intent for claiming MEIS benefits, applicable from 01-04-2015 to 31-05-2015, and mandatory from 01-06-2015. 3. Procedural Infractions Versus Substantive Benefits: The petitioner emphasized that the declaration of intent was not mandatory for free shipping bills before 01-06-2015. The court noted that procedural infractions should not overshadow the substantive entitlement to benefits. The petitioner had made extensive efforts to clarify and amend the shipping bills but was denied benefits due to the absence of the declaration of intent. 4. Interpretation of Circulars and Public Notices: The court referred to various circulars and public notices, including Circular No. 36/2010 and Public Notice No. 40/2015-2020, which allowed manual filing of shipping bills for claiming MEIS benefits due to initial teething problems in online filing. The court found that the intent to claim MEIS benefits should be clear, and the lack of declaration on the shipping bill should not be fatal if substantial evidence of export was available. 5. Judicial Precedents on Amendment of Shipping Bills: The court relied on precedents, including the cases of Gokul Overseas vs. Union of India and M/s Raj and Company vs. Union of India, where procedural lapses were not allowed to defeat substantive benefits. The court held that the omission to file the declaration of intent was not vital when all other relevant materials were available, and the petitioner should be allowed to amend the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act. Conclusion: The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case and complete the process within eight weeks, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not override substantive benefits. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
|
