9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a stand that since wrong code was entered in the electronic data interchange system, the petitioner could not be given the benefit of Rebate Scheme. The entitlement of the petitioner for availment under export scheme is not in dispute. Entering a particular code to receive the benefit was only part of procedure. It could not overreach or obliterate the substantive right claimable by the petitioner once the petitioner was eligible under the scheme to get the benefit. Resultantly, the decision of Respondent Director General of Foreign Trade reflected in email communication dated 10.06.2021 refusing to change the Scheme Code from 19 to 60 in EDI shipping bills is hereby set aside - Petition allowed. - Honourable Mr. Justice N.V.Anjaria And Honourable Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia For the Appellant : Amal Paresh Dave And Mr Paresh M Dave For the Respondent : Mr Dhaval D Vyas And Mr Nikunt K Raval ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA) In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request and consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Special Civil Application was taken up for fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n March 2019, the Central Government discontinued the earlier scheme and new scheme called the Rebate of State and Central taxes and Levies (RoSCTL), was introduced. The export benefits thereunder of Electronic Duty Credit Scrips were continued to be granted by the Director General of Foreign Trade for export of textile goods. The exporter was required to file the shipping bill under Section 50 of the Customs Act. The Customs EDI system has prescribed Scheme Codes for various export benefit schemes. For various export benefit schemes, the shipping bills are to be uploaded electronically into the system by declaring such scheme codes. 3.2 For simple Drawback benefit, it is the Scheme Code 19, which is prescribed, whereas for the export benefits of Drawback as well as RoSCTL, Scheme Code 60 is prescribed in the system. The petitioner exported 71 consignments of textile goods from Mundra Port and shipping bills came to be filed by the petitioner in the system. It appears that however, inadvertently, Scheme Code 19 was shown instead of Scheme Code 60 on those shipping bills when initially they were uploaded at the time of export in the system. It was on the said sole ground that Sch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter was required to mention Scheme Code as prescribed at the time of exports, while filing the shipping bills. The Circular dated 12.03.2019 so provided was referred, to submit that the said Circular was in public domain. 4.3 In the affidavit-in-reply, following main contention was raised, In the case of the petitioner, for the shipping bills, for which the petitioner is agitating, scheme code had been mentioned as 19 but has later been manually amended by the Customs (Respondent No. 3) from 19 to 60 . It is submitted that as per procedure notified for claim of ROSCTL benefits (Public Notice 58 dated 29.01.2020-Annexure R2), only online applications are allowed to be submitted by exporters/ applicants. Manual amendments done by Customs, do not flow electronically and has not been electronically transmitted from the Customs online server i.e. ICEGATE to DGFT server. Due to this, petitioner firm has not been able to submit a claim, within the stipulated deadline, which was initially 31.12.2021 but was later extended through Notification no. 58 dated 07.03.2022 to 15.03.2022. Thus, it may be noted that there is no application materially present for the impugned shipping b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servient to the substantive law. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by a substantive law and nothing can be taken away be the procedural law what is given by the substantive law. 5.4 Even if the petitioner had entered wrong scheme code, it was only an irregularity and not illegality. In Solanki Parvatikumari Rameshbhai Vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 22981 of 2017 , Single Judge of this Court explained the differentiation between illegality and irregularity, 5.2 Law conceives a clear differentiation between illegality and irregularity. This nice distinction brings home the case of the petitioner. An illegality is something which amounts to substantial failure in compliance of requirement. It denotes such breach of rule or requirement which alters the position of a party in terms of his right or obligation. Illegality denotes a complete defect in the jurisdiction or proceedings. Illegality is properly predictable in its radical defects. It is a situation contrary to the principle of law. As against this, an irregularity as defined lexicographically, is want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
