9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping bills. In the instant case, the material on record discloses that except for the inadvertent error that had crept into the Shipping bills, wherein the petitioner had declared N in the RoDTEP column instead of Yes , its intention to claim benefits under the RoSCTL Scheme is evident from the other material on record including the Shipping bills. Under these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of the Madras High Court in Paramount s case, the petitioner would be entitled to amend the subject 28 Shipping bills and necessary directions are to be issued to the respondents in this regard by quashing the Communication at Annexure N dated 24.11.2022 issued by the 1st respondent. The concerned respondents are directed to permit / allow the petitioner to amend the 28 Shipping bills vide Annexure H of the petitioner for the period from January 2021 to September 2021 and to grant the RoSCTL Scheme benefits to the petitioner and credit the said benefits to his Customs E-Scrip Ledger as expeditiously as possible - Petition allowed. - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR For the Petitioner (By Sri L S Karthikeyan, Advocate) For the Respondents (By Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.) ; (ii) Suretex Prophylactics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade 2022 (03) LCX 0287 4. The respondents have contested the present petition and contend that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The issue / question whether an inadvertent error in the Shipping bills by affixing No instead of Yes under the RoSCTL Scheme can be amended came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Paramount Textiles case supra wherein it was held as under: The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Certiorari filed Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in its proceedings in F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY00114193AM22 in the PRC Meeting No. 05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021, to quash the same as illegal and to grant the refund to the petitioner company under the ROSCTL scheme in respect of its Shipping Bill No. 2523603 on 30.04.2020. 2. The petitioner had made export under Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies (herein after referred to as ROSCTL) and the Foreign Trade Policy issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. While filing the Shipping Bill on the exports made by the petitioner, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver occurred during the filing of IECGATE portal. It is submitted that there was an inadvertent error while filing the Shipping Bill and that upon realizing the same, the petitioner addressed the communication to the 3rd respondent on 06.05.2020 informing the inadvertent error with a request to amend the Shipping Bill. The 3rd respondent also appears to have given a certificate on 07.06.2021 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to ROSCTL scheme. Hence, the request of the petitioner may be considered favorably. Despite the same, the 2nd respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by conveying the decision of the Committee on 09.07.2021, vide e-mail dated 20.07.2021. 10. The aforesaid decisions of this Court (referred supra) though deal with export under the MEIS scheme, nevertheless it would apply to the facts of the case inasmuch as ROSCTL scheme announced vide Notification No.14/26/2016-IT (Vol.II) dated 08.03.2019 has been given to promote export. The Ministry of Textile has decided to rebate embedded State and Central taxes and levies to support exporters from India. The fact that the petitioner has exported goods out of India and the petitioner was otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall tick N (for No). Such marking/ticking shall be required even for export shipments under any of the schemes of Chapter 4 (including drawback), Chapter 5. (ii) Non-EDI Shipping Bills: In the case of non-EDI Shipping Bills, Export shipments would need the following declaration on the Shipping Bills in order to be eligible for claiming rewards under MEIS: We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports From India Scheme (MEIS) . Such declaration shall be required even for export shipments under any of the schemes of Chapter 4 (including drawback), Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 of FTP. 11. It is undisputed that this Court and the other Courts have granted benefits to certain exporters directing the DGFT to extend the benefit of the MEIS reward where an exporter, transacting under the Non-EDI Shipping Bills, had chosen N over Y but has declared the intent to avail remedy under MEIS on the ground of inadvertent error. It is also undisputed that the EDI Shipping Bills do not provide for a separate declaration that the exporter intends to avail the MEIS benefit as is provided for Non-EDI Shipping Bills. 12. In the light of the rival submissions, the question for consideration would be: w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGRT has not considered these circumstances in rejecting the petitioner s request for MESI rewards. 16. The respondent contends that the petitioner must be relegated to the alternative remedy before the DGFT under the relevant HoP. However, mere existence of an alternative remedy cannot be a reason for refusal to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under all circumstances. This Court has opined that refund must be allowed to the petitioner because inadvertence is established and that the delay is sufficiently explained. As such, the ground for exercise of jurisdiction under Article under 226 of the Constitution of India is established. For the foregoing, the following: ORDER The writ petition is allowed quashing the decision dated 26.10.2021 by the Policy Relaxation Committee under the Director General of Foreign Trade (the first respondent) and observing that insofar as the orders dated 22.10.2020 and 28.10.2020 (Annexures B and C) by the Deputy Commissioner [Exports], Airport and Air Cargo, Commissionerate and the Joint Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Whitefield must yield and cannot be a reason to refuse the MESI benefits to the petitioner. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
