9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1373 - HC - CustomsBenefit of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) denied - petitioner, who operates under the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), has not indicated the option of intent to avail the benefit as required in law - HELD THAT - It is undisputed that this Court and the other Courts have granted benefits to certain exporters directing the DGFT to extend the benefit of the MEIS reward where an exporter, transacting under the Non- EDI Shipping Bills, had chosen N over Y but has declared the intent to avail remedy under MEIS on the ground of inadvertent error. It is also undisputed that the EDI Shipping Bills do not provide for a separate declaration that the exporter intends to avail the MEIS benefit as is provided for Non-EDI Shipping Bills. Whether the petitioner, who relies on EDI Shipping Bills, must be denied the MEIS benefit if inadvertence is established and the delay in seeking the benefit is also explained? - whether this Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or direct the petitioner to approach DGFT? - HELD THAT - This Court must opine that if inadvertent error is the premise in which the Courts have directed DGFT to extend MESI reward where option N is chosen but with the declaration to avail benefit in the case of Non-EDI shipping bills, the similar benefit to an exporter operating under EDI shipping bills cannot be denied only because a declaration of the intent to avail the benefit is not made. This would be especially so if it is uncontested that an exporter under the EDI shipping bills did not have the option of making the declaration other than in choosing Y over N to the intent to avail the MEIS benefit under the EDI mode. There would be no reasonable justification to sustain this classification. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to opine that an exporter operating under EDI shipping bills would not be entitled for the MEIS benefit if there is an inadvertent error in choosing the option. Further, it undisputed that the petitioner, but for the error in making a choice of entering N over Y , would be entitled for the benefit of the MESI Scheme. It would be difficult to believe that the petitioner, even if entitled for MESI benefit, would have chosen to give up the benefit unless it was for inadvertent error. These must also be relevant factors in assessing whether there is a bonafide and inadvertent error in making the choice. The PRC of the DGRT has not considered these circumstances in rejecting the petitioner s request for MESI rewards. It is declared that the petitioner would be entitled for the MESI benefits but subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish, within a period of eight 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, proof of withdrawal of the pending appeals - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Availment of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefit for financial years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. 2. Rejection of applications for amendment of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Shipping Bills. 3. Rejection of MEIS benefit by the Policy Relaxation Committee under the Director General of Foreign Trade (PRC-DGFT). 4. Legal implications of inadvertent error in choosing 'N' over 'Y' in the EDI Shipping Bills. 5. Alternative remedy available to the petitioner before the DGFT. 6. Examination of delay in seeking benefit and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing industrial rubber goods, sought MEIS benefit for specific financial years but faced issues due to inadvertently choosing 'N' instead of 'Y' in the EDI Shipping Bills. The petitioner approached Customs Authorities for amendment, which were rejected on grounds of delay. Subsequently, the PRC-DGFT also denied the benefit citing technical limitations. 2. The petitioner argued that the error was unintentional and cited precedents where Courts directed DGFT to grant MEIS benefits in similar cases. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to declare intent for MEIS rewards as required until a specific date. The Central Government Counsel highlighted the delay in seeking corrections post-EDI transactions between 2015-2018. 3. The Court examined the pre and post-amendment provisions of the Handbook of Procedures related to MEIS declarations. It noted previous judgments granting benefits to exporters for inadvertent errors, especially in Non-EDI Shipping Bills. The Court opined that denial of MEIS benefit solely based on lack of declaration for EDI Shipping Bills was unjustified. 4. Considering the circumstances, the Court found the petitioner entitled to MEIS benefits due to a genuine error and explained delay. It rejected the argument of relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy, emphasizing the established grounds for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the PRC-DGFT decision, and directed the petitioner to provide proof of withdrawal of pending appeals within eight weeks for availing MEIS benefits. The Court instructed the respondents to facilitate the extension of MEIS rewards to the petitioner in compliance with the order.
|
