9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 140 - HC - CustomsEntitlement of a reward under the MEIS - Decision of the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) wherein as rejected the claim for release of the reward amounts admissible under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 under 28 shipping bills of the Petitioner - Petitioner is a manufacturer of Asbestos Free brake-lining (CTH 6813 81 00) and Brake pads brake shoes (CTH 8708 30 00) and exported these items to various countries Case of the Petitioner that in 28 shipping bills generated by Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), due to a technical difficulty, they inadvertently marked N in the reward item box instead of Y in the Reward. Consequently, these 28 shipping bills were not transmitted from customs to Respondent No. 2 server for grant of rewards - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in N.C. John case 2022 (8) TMI 240 - SC ORDER has set out that where there was an inadvertent mistake of mentioning N instead of Y in the Column and the claimant had shown the intent to claim the MEIS benefit, which was granted by the High Court, in such a situation the Court sees no reason to interdict with the grant of such reward under the MEIS to the claimant. Also see MANGALATH CASHEWS, ANU CASHEW 2020 (3) TMI 1066 - KERALA HIGH COURT Undisputably the only reason for denying the MEIS benefits to the Petitioner is the fact that the Petitioner had inadvertently marked 'N' instead of 'Y' in a declaration that it intends to claim rewards under the MEIS in view of an inadvertent lapse on its part. The Petitioner while filling the aforesaid 28 Shipping Bills in the EDI system had declared their intention in the affirmative by stating we intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) . Thus, the intention of the Petitioner was from the very beginning to make such a claim. Applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in the N.C. John case, the Petitioner is entitled to the rewards.
Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of decisions by Policy Relaxation Committee rejecting claim for release of reward amounts under MEIS due to technical error in marking shipping bills. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background: The Petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to quash decisions of the Policy Relaxation Committee rejecting their claim for release of reward amounts under the MEIS due to a technical error in marking shipping bills. 2. Petitioner's Submission: The Petitioner, a manufacturer of specific items, exported goods to various countries as per the MEIS. Due to a technical error, 28 shipping bills were not transmitted for reward processing as 'N' was marked instead of 'Y' in the reward item box. 3. Legal Precedents: The Petitioner cited the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Customs v. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and decisions by the Madras High Court and Kerala High Court, supporting processing of shipping bills in similar situations. 4. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents argued that correct marking in shipping bills is essential for MEIS rewards and since the procedure was not followed, the rewards were rightly rejected. 5. Court's Observation: The Court noted that despite the error, the Petitioner was eligible for MEIS benefits amounting to Rs. 15,17,526.42. Both parties were heard, and it was acknowledged that the error was inadvertent. 6. Legal Precedent Application: Referring to the N.C. John case, the Court emphasized that if the claimant had the intent to claim MEIS benefits despite a technical error, the rewards should not be denied. The Court also highlighted a similar stance taken by the Kerala High Court. 7. Decision: The Court allowed the petition, directing the Respondents to release the reward amounts due to the Petitioner for the 28 shipping bills within six weeks, considering the Petitioner's intent to claim rewards under the MEIS from the beginning. 8. Conclusion: The judgment favored the Petitioner, emphasizing that inadvertent errors should not deprive claimants of rightful benefits under the MEIS, especially when the intent to claim rewards is evident. The decision aligned with established legal principles and previous court rulings, ensuring fair treatment in such cases.
|
