2019 (6) TMI 811 - HC - Customs

Benefit under the MEIS scheme - Amendment in shipping bills - Benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) - the petitioner had inadvertently omitted to select Yes in the online platform and omitted to mention/declare in the shipping bill that they intend to claim benefit under the MEIS scheme - HELD THAT - The issue in the case of M/S. PASHA INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2019 (2) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is applicable to the facts of the present case where it was held that petitioner shall produce the said NOC before the 4th respondent and seek the benefits from the 4th respondent. Respondents are directed to permit the writ petitioner to make necessary amendments - First respondent is directed to issue a No Objection Certificate ( NOC for brevity) to enable the petitioner to claim the benefits under any MEIS scheme from DGFT - petition disposed off.

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility for benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS).
2. Amendment of shipping bills for claiming incentives under the MEIS scheme.
3. Rejection of request for amendment by the first respondent.
4. Comparison with a similar case judgment.
5. Legal remedy sought by the writ petitioner.

Issue 1: Eligibility for benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS):
The writ petitioner claimed that goods exported were eligible for benefits under the MEIS scheme but omitted to select 'Yes' in the online platform and declare the intention to claim benefits in the shipping bill. Subsequently, when applying for incentives from the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the petitioner was informed of the need to amend the shipping bills with the Customs authorities.

Issue 2: Amendment of shipping bills for claiming incentives under the MEIS scheme:
The writ petitioner sought to amend the shipping bills to claim benefits under the MEIS scheme after realizing the omission. However, the request for amendment was rejected by the first respondent through an impugned letter dated 31.12.2018. This rejection led to the writ petition being filed by the aggrieved petitioner.

Issue 3: Rejection of request for amendment by the first respondent:
The rejection of the request for amendment by the first respondent was the crux of the dispute. The writ petitioner argued that the rejection was unjust considering the inadvertent mistake made while filling the shipping bills, which should not penalize the petitioner for a genuine error.

Issue 4: Comparison with a similar case judgment:
The writ petitioner relied on a judgment from the Madurai Bench of the High Court, where a similar situation was addressed, and the court directed the authorities to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' to enable the petitioner to claim benefits. The court in the present case noted the similarity and decided to provide a similar direction for the benefit of the petitioner.

Issue 5: Legal remedy sought by the writ petitioner:
The writ petitioner sought the High Court's intervention to set aside the impugned letter rejecting the request for amendment, permit necessary amendments to the shipping bills, and direct the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' to claim benefits under the MEIS scheme from the DGFT. The High Court, after considering the arguments and the previous judgment, passed an order in favor of the writ petitioner, setting aside the impugned letter, directing the necessary amendments, and ordering the issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate' within a specified timeframe.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the final legal remedy granted by the High Court in the case.

← Previous Next →