9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1334 - HC - CustomsSeeking to allow Petitioners the claim of RoDTEP scheme - to allow modification in the online system to enable the Petitioners to correct the technical error by allowing selection table RODTEPY for shipping bills to be under reward scheme and process the application to grant export incentives under RoDTEP to the Petitioner - seeking to improve the software/system so as to enable the Petitioners or similarly placed assessed to upload the manually amended shipping bill on the portal either themselves or through the officers of the Respondents to avail the export incentives admissible in law. HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the petitioner is eligible for the export benefit under the RoDTEP scheme in law and as per the notification of the scheme - For export of goods around India to customer situated outside India, the exports have to file shipping bills in two ways (a) filing of shipping bills manually (non-EDI) and (b) filing of shipping bills online (through EDI based e-filing services). The petitioner accordingly filed four shipping bills as stated hereinabove, however, due to oversight, the CHA of the petitioner did not select YES option and the shipping bills were filed on EDI system with default NO option for availing the benefit of RoDTEP scheme. The petitioner thereafter has filed letters for amendment of shipping bills with declaration of accepting the option of availing the benefits of RoDTEP scheme, which was granted manually under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the petitioner is not permitted to amend the shipping bills, which are already uploaded in the EDI system. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities cannot deny the benefit of RoDTEP scheme to the petitioner as the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the same. This Court in the case of Gokul Overseas 2020 (3) TMI 167 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT the facts before the court, where the petitioner omitted to file declaration of intent within three months from the date of the late export order as stipulated in the CBEC circular no. 36/10 dated 29.03.2010 for availing the benefits under the Merchandise Exports From India Scheme (MEIS) was permitted as all other relevant material available as the petitioner before the Court was eligible for the benefit of MEIS. It was observed by the Court as ' The respondents are, therefore, not justified in turning down the request to convert the shipping bills of the petitioner from free to MEIS and thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefits under the MEIS in respect of exports made under such shipping bills. ' The respondent authorities were directed to permit the petitioner to allow the filing of declaration in form GST TRAN-1 so as to enable them to claim transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act. The petitioner shall be entitled to RoDTEP scheme benefit in respect of the exports of the goods by the respondent authorities in view of the amendment of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The respondent authorities are directed to process the claim of the petitioner for RoDTEP scheme benefit irrespective of the amendment of the shipping bills on the custom automated system or in alternative the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to amend the shipping bills online on custom automated system by suitably making technical deviation in the system and thereafter, process the claim of the petitioner for benefit under the RoDTEP scheme if otherwise available to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for RoDTEP scheme benefits. 2. Technical errors in the customs automated system. 3. Amendment of shipping bills post-export. 4. Legal implications of manual vs. electronic amendments. 5. Jurisdiction and authority of customs officials under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Judicial precedents and their applicability to the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for RoDTEP Scheme Benefits: The petitioner sought relief under the RoDTEP scheme, which was introduced to replace the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS). The petitioner claimed that they were eligible for the benefits under this scheme for their exports of "India Origin Moong Whole." However, due to an oversight by their Customs House Agent (CHA), the shipping bills were filed with the default option 'NO' for RoDTEP benefits, leading to the denial of such benefits by the respondents. 2. Technical Errors in the Customs Automated System: The petitioner's main contention was that the denial of RoDTEP benefits was due to the technical inefficiency of the customs automated system, which did not allow online amendments to shipping bills after the export process was completed. The petitioner argued that such technical obstacles should not prevent them from receiving the benefits they were otherwise entitled to under the law. 3. Amendment of Shipping Bills Post-Export: The petitioner had initially approached the customs authorities to amend the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to correct the oversight. While the amendment was approved manually, it was not reflected in the electronic system, which continued to show the default 'NO' option for RoDTEP benefits. The petitioner argued that the manual amendment should suffice for granting the benefits. 4. Legal Implications of Manual vs. Electronic Amendments: The court considered whether the manual amendments, which were approved by the customs authorities, should be recognized for the purpose of granting RoDTEP benefits. The petitioner cited precedents where courts have held that substantive benefits cannot be denied due to technical errors or limitations in electronic systems. 5. Jurisdiction and Authority of Customs Officials Under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962: Section 149 allows for amendments to shipping bills based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export. The petitioner argued that this provision should enable them to claim RoDTEP benefits despite the technical issues with the electronic system. The respondents, however, contended that the system's limitations prevented them from processing such amendments electronically. 6. Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case: The petitioner relied on several judicial precedents, including cases like M/s. Siddharth Enterprises vs. Nodal Officer and Gokul Overseas vs. Union of India, where courts have ruled that technical or procedural lapses should not deny substantive benefits. The court referred to these precedents to support the petitioner's claim that they should receive RoDTEP benefits despite the technical errors. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner was eligible for the RoDTEP scheme benefits and directed the respondent authorities to process the claim irrespective of the technical issues with the customs automated system. The court emphasized that no technicality should hinder the rights of parties under substantive law and directed the respondents to either process the claim manually or amend the system to accommodate such claims. The petition was disposed of with specific directions to ensure the petitioner received the benefits they were entitled to under the RoDTEP scheme.
|
