2022 (9) TMI 757 - HC - Customs

Seeking amendment of shipping bills - MEIS scheme - it is urged that the Petitioner has not sought for any benefit under the MEIS as they have ticked No box in all the 59 shipping bills filed during the period 2017-18 to 2019-20 - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The request for amendment of shipping bills came to be made nearly three years after submission of shipping bills. It is also an admitted fact that, the amendment is sought after the entire consignment/vessel has been dispatched from the port. As seen from the record, the request of the petitioner for availing Scrip benefit under MEIS came to be made four years after the goods were dispatched. It is no doubt true that the petitioner in their application expressed their intent to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports Forex Bank, but, in the reward column namely as to whether they intend to claim reward on the scheme, the petitioner has ticked the box as No - here is a case where these 59 bills were submitted online on various dates covering a period of three years. The mistake if any that has crept in could have been verified and rectified at the earliest. It is very difficult to believe that the same mistake would have been continued over the years without verifying the same, more so, when a request for conversion to MEIS came to be made after the dispatch of the entire goods to foreign countries. Basing on the N/N. 26/2015-20 dated 16.09.2021, it is urged that the exports made during the periods 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2019 and 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 to 31.12.2020 alone gets benefit, if an application is made before 31.12.2021. The record reveals that the petitioner herein did make a request for the benefit under MEIS not only for the period referred to above but also for the earlier period in the month of February, 2021 and for the subsequent periods. It is deemed proper to remand back the matter to the first respondent to examine the request of the petitioner in view of the Notification and pass orders in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of shipping bills to claim MEIS benefits.
2. Adherence to time limits for amendments as per Trade Facilitation Notice.
3. Applicability of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendments.
4. Validity of rejection of amendment request without a hearing.
5. Impact of Notification No. 26/2015-20 dated 16.09.2021 on the petitioner's claim.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of Shipping Bills to Claim MEIS Benefits:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and export of Barium Carbonate, sought to amend 59 shipping bills to claim benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS). The error occurred when the petitioner's agent inadvertently selected "No" in the reward column instead of "Yes" while uploading the shipping bills on the Electronic Data Interface (EDI) system. Despite the petitioner's declaration of intent to claim MEIS rewards, the request for amendment was rejected by the Customs Authorities.

2. Adherence to Time Limits for Amendments as per Trade Facilitation Notice:
The Customs Authorities cited the Trade Facilitation Notice No. 02/2015-CUS dated 07.05.2015, which stipulates that requests for amendment of shipping bills must be made within one month from the date of the Letter of Export Order (LEO). Since the petitioner's request was made several years after the shipping bills were filed, it was deemed non-compliant with the stipulated time frame.

3. Applicability of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for Amendments:
Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows amendments to shipping bills based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export. The Customs Authorities argued that since the petitioner had filed the shipping bills electronically indicating "No" for MEIS benefits, the amendment could not be permitted under Section 149. The petitioner contended that the mistake was inadvertent and should be rectified to reflect their true intent.

4. Validity of Rejection of Amendment Request Without a Hearing:
The petitioner argued that the rejection of their amendment request without an opportunity for a hearing was improper and violated principles of natural justice. The Customs Authorities' decision to reject the amendment request was based on the closure of Export General Manifests (EGMs) and the shipping bills being in HIST status, which precluded amendments in the EDI system.

5. Impact of Notification No. 26/2015-20 dated 16.09.2021 on the Petitioner's Claim:
The petitioner relied on Notification No. 26/2015-20, which extended the last date for submitting online applications for scrip-based schemes, including MEIS, to 31.12.2021 for exports made from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2020. The petitioner argued that this notification should entitle them to claim MEIS benefits for the specified periods, as they had approached the authorities within the extended timeline.

Conclusion:
The court considered the petitioner's arguments and the factual aspects of the case, including the applicability of the Notification dated 16.09.2021. It was deemed appropriate to remand the matter back to the first respondent (Customs Authorities) to re-examine the petitioner's request in light of the notification and pass orders in accordance with the law. The court directed that an opportunity for a hearing be provided to the petitioner to address any legal issues involved. The writ petition was thus disposed of, with no order as to costs, and any pending interlocutory applications were closed.