2021 (6) TMI 1007 - HC - Customs

Amendment of shipping bills - amendment sought on the ground of erroneous assumption that the shipping bills contain an inadvertant error that disentitled it from claiming benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS Scheme) - HELD THAT - Reliance on Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'Act') dealing with 'Amendment of documents' is unnecessary in this case, since the shipping bills require no amendment and clearly reflect the intention of the petitioner to claim the benefit. In the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2019 too, the petitioner reiterates its intention to claim reward under the MEIS Scheme, but goes on thereafter to refer to provisions of Section 149 of the Act - In view of the fact that the petitioner's intention to claim MEIS benefit is clear from the shipping bills and the mistake has only happened while uploading the bills in the EDI, the error is hyper-technical, inadvertent and a human error and should not stand in the way of the petitioner being granted the substantial benefit which it has opted for, from inception. It appears that the petitioner has been inspired by an order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition granting benefit in similar situations. It would be too harsh to state in such circumstances, specifically in the light of the facts as noticed by me above in paragraph Nos.2 to 5 that the petitioner should be denied the benefit merely on the ground of delay. This argument is rejected - The petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the MEIS Scheme and the respondents are directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the MEIS Scheme and the respondents are directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from today - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misconceived prayer for amendment of shipping bills for claiming MEIS Scheme benefit.
2. Erroneous rejection of claim due to technical error in filling 'yes or no' field.
3. Delay in representation for MEIS benefit and its impact on the claim.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought direction for amending shipping bills to claim benefit under the MEIS Scheme, alleging an inadvertent error. However, the court found that the shipping bills clearly indicated the intention to claim the benefit, and the rejection based on the word 'No' in the EDI upload was deemed erroneous.

2. The discrepancy arose as the EDI field was incorrectly filled as 'No' instead of 'yes,' despite the correct intention expressed in the shipping bills. The court emphasized that this was a technical inadvertent error, and the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 were deemed unnecessary as the bills did not require any amendment.

3. Despite a delay of one year and nine months in the petitioner's representation for MEIS benefit, the court noted that this delay was not a ground for rejection by the authorities. The court rejected the argument of substantial delay impacting the claim, especially considering the clear intention expressed in the shipping bills and the technical nature of the error.

4. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit under the MEIS Scheme within eight weeks. The court highlighted that the petitioner should not be denied the benefit due to delay, especially in light of previous similar judgments and the clear intention expressed in the shipping bills.