2022 (9) TMI 398 - HC - Customs

Seeking sanction of benefits under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) in terms of Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 - time limitation - HELD THAT - The respective High Courts have consistently held that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to a technical error or lacunae in the electronic system. In the case on hand also, a clear intention was revealed in the shipping bill submitted by the petitioner they then intend to claim the benefits/incentive under Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) and further, the petitioner having got the inadvertent mistake made in the shipping bill, amended by an order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, the respondents ought to have processed the petitioner's shipping bill and ought to have granted the benefits to the petitioner under Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS). This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be deprived of its rights to avail the benefits under Merchandise Export from India Scheme only on the ground that subsequent amendment ratifying the earlier inadvertent mistake was done manually and not electronically - this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2019 seeking to get the benefit under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) for the subject shipping bill - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Mandamus seeking direction to sanction benefits under Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) within a time-bound manner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an exporter of human hair, sought benefits under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS). Due to an inadvertent error in the shipping bills submitted online, the petitioner initially indicated "No" regarding their intention to claim rewards under MEIS. However, this was later corrected manually by a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to "Yes." The respondents refused to process the application for MEIS benefits citing the manual amendment and non-transmission of electronic data to the DGFT server.

The Court referred to previous decisions where it was held that entitlement to benefits cannot be denied due to technical errors in the electronic system. In this case, the petitioner clearly expressed the intention to claim benefits under MEIS, and the subsequent manual correction should not deprive them of their rights. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and grant the benefits within six weeks from the date of the order.

Therefore, the Court emphasized that technical errors should not hinder the petitioner's entitlement to benefits under MEIS, and the respondents were directed to process the petitioner's request within a specified timeline.