Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1373 - HC - CustomsBenefit of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) denied - petitioner, who operates under the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), has not indicated the option of intent to avail the benefit as required in law - HELD THAT:- 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. Whether the petitioner, who relies on EDI Shipping Bills, must be denied the MEIS benefit if inadvertence is established and the delay in seeking the benefit is also explained? - whether this Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or direct the petitioner to approach DGFT? - HELD THAT:- This Court must opine that if inadvertent error is the premise in which the Courts have directed DGFT to extend MESI reward where option ‘N’ is chosen but with the declaration to avail benefit in the case of Non-EDI shipping bills, the similar benefit to an exporter operating under EDI shipping bills cannot be denied only because a declaration of the intent to avail the benefit is not made. This would be especially so if it is uncontested that an exporter under the EDI shipping bills did not have the option of making the declaration other than in choosing ‘Y’ over ‘N’ to the intent to avail the MEIS benefit under the EDI mode. There would be no reasonable justification to sustain this classification. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to opine that an exporter operating under EDI shipping bills would not be entitled for the MEIS benefit if there is an inadvertent error in choosing the option. Further, it undisputed that the petitioner, but for the error in making a choice of entering ‘N’ over ‘Y’, would be entitled for the benefit of the MESI Scheme. It would be difficult to believe that the petitioner, even if entitled for MESI benefit, would have chosen to give up the benefit unless it was for inadvertent error. These must also be relevant factors in assessing whether there is a bonafide and inadvertent error in making the choice. The PRC of the DGRT has not considered these circumstances in rejecting the petitioner’s request for MESI rewards. It is declared that the petitioner would be entitled for the MESI benefits but subject to the condition that the petitioner shall furnish, within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, proof of withdrawal of the pending appeals - Petition allowed.
|