Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 444 - HC - CustomsRejection of request of the Petitioner for no objection - benefit of merchandise under Merchandise Exports India Scheme (MEIS) under Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 - HELD THAT:- The Merchandise Exports From India Scheme [MEIS] is an exporter incentive given to an exporter to offset the infrastructural inefficiencies and the associated costs. The aforesaid scheme entitles an exporter to duty credit script to be utilized for discharging the basic customs duty, additional customs duty specified under Section 3(1), 3(3) and 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for import of inputs of goods including capital goods, as per DoR Notification, except in the case of listed goods under Appendix 3A to Foreign Trade Policy. The petitioner herein has failed to exercise the option in all the shipping bills unaware of the changes in the procedure. Though the Government has issued clarification dated 9-10-2015 in Public Notice No. 40/2015-2020 to the effect that Paragraph 3.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy [2015-20] does not allow manual feeding of EDA shipping bill details and following of such scheme is not possible manually, it is to be noticed that the aforesaid scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy is an incentive granted to an exporter - the petitioner herein has failed to exercise the option in all the shipping bills unaware of the changes in the procedure. Though the Government has issued clarification dated 9-10-2015 in Public Notice No. 40/2015-2020 to the effect that Paragraph 3.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy [2015-20] does not allow manual feeding of EDA shipping bill details and following of such scheme is not possible manually, it is to be noticed that the aforesaid scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy is an incentive granted to an exporter. In this case, there is only a procedural lapse. If the petitioner was otherwise entitled to the aforesaid exporter incentive and was not disentitled to the same, such benefit cannot be denied - the impugned order passed by the third respondent has to go as such export incentives cannot be denied on account of procedural lapse. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondents to re-examine the issue as to whether the petitioner had indeed exported and was entitled to the exporter incentive under the aforesaid scheme, but for the lapse of not clicking the correct option in the System/Web Portal. The Writ Petition stands allowed.
|