9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her consequential orders as it may deem fit; (b) Alternatively, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No.3 and 4 to amend the concerned Relevant Shipping Bill (List of which is annexed at Annexure-4) on EDI System, online or otherwise, in line with the Amendment Certificate dated 09.10.2019 and further directing Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to allow MEIS benefit to the petitioner in relation to the exports made on the basis of such amendment in EDI System; (c) Pass any other consequential writ, order or direction as the Court may deem fit. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ-application may be summarized as under: BRIEF FACTS 2.1 The writ-applicant is a private limited company incorporated in India, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting metro coaches from India. The manufacturing unit of the writ-applicant company is located in Vadodara, Gujarat. The writ-applicant was contracted for the supply of 450 coaches to Australia under a project called Queensland New Generation Rolling Stock (QNGR). Pursuant to this contract, the writ-applicant has been manufacturing and exporting the metro coach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments such as commercial invoices, checklist for shipping bills and other documentary evidence in this regard and issued Amendment Certificate dated 09.10.2018 in accordance with Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Amendment Certificate issued by the office of the Commissioner clarifies that, since the corrections could not be carried out in the EDI System, a manual amendment certificate is being issued to the writ-applicant. 2.8 Even after submitting the said amendment certificate and regular follow up with the concerned respondents, the MEIS benefits were not granted to the writ-applicant on the pretext that the MEIS benefits for EDI shipping bills will not be granted where the rewards column has not been marked/ticked as "Yes". 3. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, the writ-applicant is here before this Court with the present writ-application. SUBMISSIONS: 4. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing with Mr. Rohan Lavkumar, the learned counsel for the writ-applicant submitted that the benefits under the MEIS cannot be denied to the writ-applicant solely on the ground of a seeming technical error especially when the eligibility of the writ-applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch Amendment was issued after scrutiny. 10. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Shekhar prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and to direct the respondents to grant the MEIS benefits to the writ-applicant. 11. On the otherhand, this writ-application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Mitesh Amin, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Shruti Pathak, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent no.4. 12. Mr. Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India by its affidavitinreply dated 12th February 2021 has opposed the present petition on the limited ground that only those shipping bills marked as "Y" in the EDI system would be available for the MEIS benefit. It is the Respondent's case that as per paragraph 3.14 (a) of the Handbook of Procedure to the FTP 2015-20 "marking/ticking of "Y" (for Yes) in "Reward" column of shipping bills against each item, which is mandatory, would be sufficient to declare to intent to claim rewards under the scheme." It is further the Respondent's case that no amendment can be carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out thereto are per se not declaration of law but only impose conditions which are to be fulfilled and otherwise conform to the requirements of law..." 16. It is further submitted that Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits amendment of the Shipping Bills if the conditions of the said section are fulfilled. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 is reproduced below: "149. Amendment of documents.-Save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after it has been presented in the customs house to be amended: Provided that no amendment of a bill of entry or shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorised to be amended after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be." 17. Thus, as stated hereinabove, the respondent no.4, after due verification of the documentary evidence existing at the time of the export duly amended the shipping bills manually from "MEIS SCHEME - "No" to ME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s' was omitted to be checked. But it was noticed that, in the column meant for description of the goods, the writ petitioners had clearly indicated their intention to avail the benefit of MEIS. The learned Single Judge specifically noted that, in the shipping bill produced that the writ petitioners have specifically mentioned that 'WE INTEND TO CLAIM REWARD UNDER MEIS'. Therefore it was found that the denial of the claim to avail the benefit could not have been done in a mechanical manner, merely because there was a technical lapse on the part of the exporter in not checking a particular box in the web portal; more so when there was sufficient indication in other details entered therein about the intention of the exporter to claim the rewards. Therefore the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the appellants as well as the Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the claim of the writ petitioners for export benefit, afresh, in the light of the observations contained in the judgment and to the grant export benefits, if on an overall consideration of the details furnished by the writ petitioners the intention to claim the benefit of the MEIS was seen manifest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Customs, Order dated 10th January 2019 in WP (MD) No. 25252 of 2018 and 22857 of 2018; 2019 (2) TMI 1187 has also decided the issue similarly. 21. The issue has also been decided in various other cases namely: (i) M/s. P.A. Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGFT and Ors., 2020 (3) TMI 273 Madras High Court (ii) M/s. Davinci Leather Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, 2020 (2) TMI 1266 Madras High Court (iii) M/s. Global Calcium Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (EDC) and Ors., 2019 (6) TMI 811 Madras High Court (iv) Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India, 2018 (11) TMI 536 - Kerala High Court (v) Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. NC John and Sons, 2020 (374) ELT 465 - Kerala High Court 22. The decisions rendered by various High Courts have not been appealed before any higher forum by any of the respondent till date. 23. The writ-applicant submits that as per its understanding, the EDI system, which is an electronic system developed and managed by the respondent no.3 with an objective to digitalize transmission of shipping bills between Respondents, suffers from lacunae that it does not permit amendment, which is specifically perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
