2023 (6) TMI 552 - HC - Customs

Denial of legitimate export benefits in the nature of Merchandize Exports from India Scheme - HELD THAT - What admittedly emerges from the facts of the cases and the response of the respondents to the grievance of the petitioner is that the exports were actually made by the petitioner during the period from July 2020 to August 2020. The shipping bills could not be uploaded and operated in the system as it was the time marked by the Covid - 19 Pandemic period. The office of the respondent no.3 was not working. The officers had been working from home. It was for that obvious reasons, not attributable to the petitioner, that the export orders were manually made and they were not feeded in the Electronic system. It appears that by Notification dated 01.09.2020, the cap of Rs.2 crores was introduced in respect of the benefit under the Scheme. It is to be recollected that the petitioners Export Orders manually registered with the competent authorities were for the period during July and August 2020 - For non-grant of MEIS export benefit, a technical reason is put forth that the details of such exports were entered in the portal of the Director General of Foreign Trade in the month of September 2020 and October 2020 by the jurisdictional Customs officer. The respondents does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of MEIS benefit. The entire tenor of the affidavit is that under para 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy, the relief of the petitioner could be granted. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner may make representation as stated in the affidavit-in-reply. From the facts of the case, it appears that the case of the petitioner could be considered for granting appropriate relief under para 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy. While this aspect is to be finally examined by the competent authority-Director General of Foreign Trade, the petitioner is permitted to make representation to the competent authority-respondents in respect of the grievance raised and prayers made in this petition - the petitioner may make representation to the competent authorities of the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order in respect of the grievance raised in this petition. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of legitimate export benefits under the Merchandize Exports from India Scheme (MEIS).
2. Non-grant of MEIS benefits due to technical reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary:

Issue 1: Denial of Legitimate Export Benefits under MEIS

The petitioner claimed that the respondents denied legitimate export benefits under the MEIS for exports made during July 2020 to August 2020, amounting to Rs.1.04 crores. The petitioner sought a direction to grant MEIS scrips for this value for exports made under 175 shipping bills, as certified by the Specified Officer on 17.11.2021. Initially, the petitioner also sought to strike down certain provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and sought additional MEIS benefits and interest, but these prayers were not pressed.

Issue 2: Non-grant of MEIS Benefits Due to Technical Reasons Related to COVID-19

The petitioner's exports during July 2020 and August 2020 were manually recorded due to the COVID-19 lockdown, as Customs officers worked from home without access to the EDI System. These manual Let Export Orders (LEOs) were later uploaded in September and October 2020. The petitioner argued that despite the actual export dates, the benefits were denied because the entries were made in the DGFT portal in September and October 2020, thus falling under the capped period introduced by Notification No. 30/2015 dated 01.09.2020.

Court's Observations and Directions:

1. The court noted that the exports were indeed made during July and August 2020, and the delay in uploading the shipping bills was due to the pandemic, not the petitioner's fault.
2. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to the MEIS benefits but suggested that relief could be granted under para 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy.
3. The petitioner was directed to make a representation to the Director General of Foreign Trade within three weeks, and the competent authority was instructed to decide on the representation within four weeks from its receipt.
4. The court emphasized that the competent authority should consider the facts and observations made in the order while deciding the representation.

Conclusion:

The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority, who must decide on it within the stipulated time, considering the facts and circumstances highlighted by the court.