TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Baijal and Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Advocates. Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates for R-6 to 10. JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that there is a typographical error in the Order dated 14.03.2024 inasmuch as this Court has recorded that the matter is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court, however, in fact the matter is squarely covered by the Judgments passed by this Court. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the Order dated 14.03.2024 stands corrected accordingly. 3. The Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, to call for, examine and quash the orders issued in the PRC Meeting No. 31/AM19 dated 19.02.2019 (Case No. 17 18), 15/AM20 dated 13.08.2019 (Case No. 12 13), 15/AM21 dated 03.11.2020 11.11.2020 (Case No. 9 1 0); b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction: (i) directing the Respondent No. 2/3 to accept, consider and process a manual application from the Petitioners in lie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake, however, the same was not permitted. 6. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the controversy involved in the present petition is covered by the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Jubilant Biosys Limited v Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Others: W.P.(C) 14754/2022. Pursuant to the orders passed in the said petition, a committee of officers was constituted to consider whether the benefit of MEIS could be extended to the petitioner in that case. The said committee took a lenient view and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14754/2022 (Jubilant Biosys Limited), which was earlier denied the benefit of MEIS on similar grounds as in the present petition, was granted the benefit of MEIS. The relevant extract of the order dated 16.02.2022, passed by this Court in Jubilant Biosys Limited vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Others (supra), reads as under: 6. This Court is informed that in compliance with the aforesaid order, a meeting of concerned officers was held on 08.12.2022. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting had been handed over to this Court. Paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the said minutes read as under: 4. In excepti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, in case of N flag, details of the shipping bills are not transmitted to DGFT. 5. Since this is an inter-ministerial matter (CBIC, MoF and DGFT, DoC), such amendments may be routed through Drawback Division of CBIC along with a copy to this Directorate for necessary action. As per existing practice with DGFT, such cases shall be transmitted to DGFT from backend without any change in the self-declaration of the exporter i.e., such cases will be transmitted with N flag only without any modification to the original declaration of the exporter. 6. In addition, an e-mail correspondence shall be sent to the nodal officer of DGFT who handles the technical wing for necessary action at their end. 7. The records shall be transmitted from the ICEGATE to the DGFT as per the normal protocol of exchange of data between ICEGATE and DGFT. As agreed by DGFT, their system will accept such records even with N flag and thereafter handling at Systems end shall be complete. Deputy Director, ICES . 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also places reliance upon the Judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 14131/2021 in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited vs. Union of India and Ors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under MEIS shall be decided within a period of six weeks thereafter. 5. This Court is of the view that the similar benefits ought to be extended to the petitioner in this case as well. The petitioner s case stands on a better footing as it had clearly indicated that it intended to take the benefit of the MEIS scheme. Thus, the error of not marking Y against the reward column is clearly an inadvertent error. 6. In view of the above, respondent no. 4 shall transmit the corrected bills through manual intervention at ICEGATE within a period of two weeks from today. The DGFT (respondent no. 2) shall process the petitioner s claim for benefits under the MEIS scheme within a period of six weeks thereafter. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further places reliance upon the Judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 14754/2022 in the case of Jubilant Biosys Limited vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Ors. wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: 5. The petition was considered on 19.10.2022 and a coordinate bench of this Court had had passed the following order: W.P.(C) 14754/2022 2. The principal grievance of the petitioner is, that altho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However post EGM such amendments are done in a manual mode and no electronic transmission of such manual amendments is possible to the DGFT server. 5. Nothing the Hon ble Court s directions in this individual case it was decided that Customs will transmit the N SBs to DGFT server through a manual intervention at ICEGATE, DGFT based on the electronic transmission and keeping in view the manual amendments made, will process the case for further for grant of MEIS benefits as exceptional manner. 7. In view of the aforesaid decision, respondent no. 4 shall transmit the corrected bills as decided in terms of paragraph no. 5 of the minutes, as stated above, within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner s claim for benefits under MEIS shall be decided within a period of six weeks thereafter. 8. In view of the above, the petitioner s grievance in the present petition stands addressed. No further orders are required to be passed in this petition. 7. Mr. Kritiman Singh, learned CGSC, draws attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 wherein the Customs Department has accepted the case of the Petitioner. 8. In view of the above pronouncements b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
