IMPORTANT POINT
Inadvertent errors in marking 'Y' or 'N' in the reward column of shipping bills should not result in the denial of MEIS benefits.

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 lieu of the online application for MEIS benefits in respect of exports for which the Respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 9 have issued no objection certificates;

(ii) directing the Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 10 to issue the no objection certificates with respect to the balance shipping bills as filed in their respective jurisdictions, similar to those issued by the Respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 9, and further directing the Respondent No. 2/3 to accept, consider and process a manual application from the Petitioners in lieu of the online application for MEIS benefits in respect of such exports;

(iii) in the alternative, directing the Respondent No. 2/3 and/or the Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 to make necessary technical modifications in the DGFT portal/Customs ICEGATE System, as deemed appropriate, such that the reward column of the subject shipping bills can be amended from `No' to `Yes' and duly reflected for the purposes of filing an online MEIS application;

(iv) in the alternative and if deemed necessary, directing the Respondent No. 4 to re-consider the Petitioners' request to permit filing manual application of MEIS claim on the basis of such no-objection certificates;

c. for such further and other reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the matter stands settled by the rulings of this Court. He places reliance upon the Judgment dated 10.05.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1184/2021 in the case of "M/s RK Agroexport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors." wherein the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by observing as under:

"4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 10.10.2019, passed by respondent No. 3 and an order dated 22.11.2019, passed by respondent No. 5 (hereafter `impugned orders').

5. In terms of the impugned orders, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (hereafter `MEIS') in respect of certain Shipping Bills (13 in number) as contemplated under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015- 2020. The petitioner has been denied the said benefit for the reasons that the petitioner had checked the box `N' (for No) instead of `Y' (for Yes) in the reward column pertaining to MEIS. The petitioner claims that the same is an inadvertent error. The petitioner had sought to correct the said mistake, 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 th