9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly.) and after looking into the same and the legality thereof, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Orders/decisions (Annexure-A(Colly.) (a/1) That this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other such writ, order, direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondents directing the respondents to accept the applications that may be made for the grant of MEIS scrips manually for the 68 shipping bills which are subject matter of the impugned orders/ decisions dated 25.9.2018, 21.5.2019, 27.10.2020 and 26.11.2020 b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordering and directing the Respondents to Respondents to issue to the Petitioner No. 1, MEIS Scrips against the exports undertaken by the Petitioner No. 1 under the Shipping Bills, details whereof are set out in Annexure D hereto; 3. Facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petition is as under: 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that during the period February 2016-April 2019, the Petitioner No. 1 undertook exports of goods manufactured at its factories at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those of the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court have held that where there was an inadvertent mistake in the declarations with intent of the claim of MEIS directions were issued to grant MEIS scrips. The respondents in not considering the claims clearly ignored these decisions and hence the prayers in the petition deserve to be granted. 4.1 Following decisions were pressed into service by learned Senior Advocate in support of his submissions. 1. Bombardier Transportation India P. Ltd vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade [Judgment dated 17.02.2021 in Special Civil Application No. 11038 of 2020 of this Court [2021(3) TMI 9-GUJ HC]] 2. Global Calcium P. Ltd Versus Asstt. Commr of Customs (EDC), Chennai [2019 (370) ELT 176 (Mad)] 3. Pasha International Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2019 (365) ELT 669 (Mad)] 4. P.A. Footwear P. Ltd Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi [2020 (372) ELT 660 (Mad)] 5. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Mangalath Cashews [2020 (373) ELT 149 (Ker)]. 6. Gokul Overseas Versus Union of India [2020(373) E.L.T.49 (Guj.)] 7. Biocon Limited Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi [2022 (38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted Notified Goods (Metro Coaches) to Notified Territory (Australia) cannot be deprived of the necessary MEIS benefits. 18. The entitlement to MEIS benefits is governed by the Chapter-III of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 (FTP 2015-20) and accordingly, the scheme for the grant of the benefit will be governed thereunder. In other words, the substantive rights and obligations are created by the MEIS Scheme under Chapter-III of the FTP. It also becomes apparent from Para 3.04 of the Policy that once the notified goods are exported to a notified market, the exporter becomes entitled to the MEIS benefits. Thus, entitlement, restriction thereof and conditions, if any, have to be found within the letters of the Chapter-III of the FTP 201520. Thus, the writ-applicant becomes entitled to the MEIS benefits once it exports the notified goods to the notified market. This benefit cannot be defeated due to procedural infirmity of missing to mark/tick "Y" in the rewards column. 19. It is further submitted that the issue in the present writ application is no longer res integra. Various High Courts including this Hon'ble High Court have already permitted the amendment of shipping bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a copy of the judgment, after hearing the writ petitioners. In the meanwhile, the Customs Authorities were directed to issue necessary 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the writ petitioners for processing the claim afresh. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that, since the writ petitioners have not checked the 'Yes' Box in the relevant column, indicating their intention with respect to claiming of the benefit under MEIS, necessary verification of the export consignment was not done at the relevant time; and that verification of the consignment is not possible as of now. We are not persuaded to accept the said contention. Even if there exists no claim for the benefit under the MEIS, naturally there will be physical verification with respect to the goods consigned by the exporter. Therefore the details of the shipping as well as the necessary verification preceding the export were already done at that time would clearly indicate the identity of the goods exported. If the identity of the goods exported would reveal that the goods exported are those goods with respect to which the benefit under MEIS is allowable, there is no necessity for furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a settled law 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. 24. In this regard, a reference is made to the decision in the case of Darsh Pharma Chem Pvt Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central GST, Order dated 11 March 2020 in SCA 18051 of 2019; 2020 (3) TMI 696 wherein this Court, having regard to the fact that the TRAN-1 could not be filed on account of technical glitches in the electronic system, directed the respondents therein to permit the writ-applicant therein to file form in TRAN-1. We quote the relevant observations: "8. Having regard to the fact that the TRAN-1 could not be filed on account of technical glitches. We direct the respondent No. 2 to permit the writ applicant to file form in TRAN-1. 9. In view of the order referred to above, let this exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order." 6.1 So also in the case of Jindal Saw Limited (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in paras 14-16 held as under: "14. Having heard both the sides and also on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. No technicality can mar the right of the parties which otherwise accrued under the substantive law. Here when genuineness of the export and entitlement of petitioner otherwise is not in any manner disputed, this technical glitch shall in no manner hamper the request of the petitioner of getting benefit." 6.3 In the case of L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited (supra) the order reads as under: "1. This Court issued notice on 01.07.2021 in the aforementioned petitions which have been duly served. The other side also appeared. 2. The pleadings are not as yet completed. The request is made for and on behalf of learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Vyas to allow the respondents to complete the pleadings. 3. Noticing that the time period for physically submitting the application for export benefits is getting time barred on 31.12.2021, we would follow the order passed by us in the earlier matter particularly in Special Civil Application No. 17424 of 2021 and direct the respondents to accept the manual application without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by the either side. The authority concerned shall also look into the same and decide subject to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exported the goods under free shipping bills. All the SEZ exports come under free shipping bills. Therefore, the mandatory 'declaration of intent' with effect from 01.06.2015 will not be applicable in this case. Therefore, the unit has to declare its intent for claiming benefits under the MEIS for exports made prior to 01.06.2015, that is, for the period between 01.04.2015 to 31.05.2015. As per the Foreign Trade Policy/Handbook of Procedure 2015 20, MEIS benefits were available to SEZ units with effect from 01.04.2015." 7. In light of the decisions referred to hereinabove, it is clear that the only ground on which the petitioners could not claim the benefit of the MEIS was an inadvertent mistake in clicking "NO" instead of "YES". Such an inadvertent mistake cannot disentitle the petitioners to claim the benefit of the MEIS or Merchandise Exports of India Scheme. 8. The petition is therefore allowed and the decisions denying such benefits are quashed and set aside and respondents are further directed to accept the applications made for the grant of MEIS Scrips manually for the 68 Shipping Bills which were the subject matter of the impugned orders/ decisions dated 25.09.2018, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
