2022 (4) TMI 1260 - HC - Customs

Seeking refund under Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies (ROSCTL) scheme - benefit of scheme announced vide a N/N. 14/26/2016-IT (Vol.II) dated 08.03.2019 or not - inadvertent selection of option NO instead of YES while filing the ROSCTL claim of the petitioner in the said Shipping Bill or not - case of petitioner is that such an error never occurred during the filing of IECGATE portal - HELD THAT - It is submitted that there was an inadvertent error while filing the Shipping Bill and that upon realizing the same the petitioner addressed the communication to the 3rd respondent on 06.05.2020 informing the inadvertence error with a request to amend the Shipping Bill. The 3rd respondent also appears to have given a certificate on 07.06.2021 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to ROSCTL scheme. Hence the request of the petitioner may be considered favorably. Despite the same the 2nd respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by conveying the decision of the Committee on 09.07.2021 vide e-mail dated 20.07.2021. The decisions of this Court in M/S. K.I. INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL-II) THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EDC) 2021 (6) TMI 1007 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LIMITED VERSUS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (DGFT) THE DGFT POLICY RELAXATION COMMITTEE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2022 (3) TMI 826 - MADRAS HIGH COURT though deal with export under the MEIS scheme nevertheless it would apply to the facts of the case inasmuch as ROSCTL scheme announced vide Notification No.14/26/2016- IT (Vol.II) dated 08.03.2019 has been given to promote export. The Ministry of Textile has decided to rebate embedded State and Central taxes and levies to support exporters from India. The fact that the petitioner has exported goods out of India and the petitioner was otherwise entitled to the aforesaid scheme is not in dispute. This writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of 2nd respondent denying ROSCTL scheme benefit to petitioner company in respect of Shipping Bill, alternative remedy available through review before DGFT Policy Relaxation Committee, applicability of previous court decisions on MEIS scheme to ROSCTL scheme.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking Certiorarified Mandamus against the impugned order of the 2nd respondent denying the ROSCTL scheme benefit under the Foreign Trade Policy for a specific Shipping Bill. The petitioner inadvertently made an error while opting for the ROSCTL scheme in the Shipping Bill, which led to the denial of the benefit. The petitioner argued that the ROSCTL scheme is a beneficial scheme available to exporters and cannot be denied. The petitioner cited previous court decisions related to the MEIS scheme, asserting that the principles applied in those cases should also be applicable to the ROSCTL scheme.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through a review before the DGFT Policy Relaxation Committee as per the Foreign Trade Policy. They argued that the writ petition lacked merit and should be dismissed, directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate application through the prescribed provisions under the policy. However, the court considered the arguments from both sides and examined the case presented by the petitioner.

The court noted that the petitioner had exported organic cotton and filed a Shipping Bill with an error in opting for the ROSCTL scheme. Despite the error, the petitioner promptly notified the authorities about the mistake and requested an amendment to the Shipping Bill. The 3rd respondent confirmed the petitioner's entitlement to the ROSCTL scheme, but the 2nd respondent rejected the request, leading to the present legal challenge.

In its decision, the court acknowledged the purpose of the ROSCTL scheme to promote exports by rebating embedded State and Central taxes and levies. Emphasizing that the petitioner was entitled to the scheme and had exported goods from India, the court directed the respondents to grant the benefit to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition without costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.