IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural lapses in declaring intent on shipping bills do not negate eligibility for MEIS benefits when substantive conditions are satisfied.

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta for the respondent nos. 1,4 and 5.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandarnus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 2 or his officers to grant benefit under MEIS scheme and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3. (Exhibit-1).

(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 4 or his officers including Respondent No.5 to amend the Shipping Bills manually and allow the Petitioners to claim benefit under the said MEIS scheme.

(c) that this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to allow modification in the online system to enable the Petitioners to correct the technical error by allowing selection table "Yes" for shipping bill to be under reward scheme and process the application to grant export incentives under MEIS to the Petitioner or alternatively direct Respondent No. 4 and 5 to recall and amend the 91 Shipping Bills granting the MEIS benefit.

(d) that this Hon'ble Court may allow prayer (a), (b) and (c) and direct the Respondents to grant the benefits due to them under MEIS scheme as prayed for in Ground F supra, as consequential relief...;”

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is having its plant at Plot No.SM 9/2, GIDC Estate, Sanand-II, Village Bol, Sanand, Ahmedabad and is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is also registered with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and is holding Importer-Exporter Code No.0812016939.

4. In the regular course of business, the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and exporting of Alluminium Cans falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for various industrial use by the customers.

5. Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 provides for export incentives under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) to the exporters who are engaged in exports of notified goods/products to notified markets as listed in Appendix 3B.

6. The procedure required to be followed by an exporter for availing the benefit under MEIS is provided under Chapter 3 of the Handbook of Procedures, amongst which one of the requirement is declaration of intent on shipping bills for claiming rewards under MEIS. In case of EDI shipping bills, intent to avail benefits under MEIS is to be declared by selecting ‘Y’ (for Yes) in the reward column whereas in the case of non-EDI shipping bills, the declaration ”We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports From India Scheme” is to be made in shipping bills.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been claiming MEIS benefit by making categorical declaration that We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports From India Scheme” and the same is being granted to them time to time.

8. However, during the period from May 2017 to March, 2018, the petitioner filed multiple shipping bills for export of cans and for many of them due to unforeseen reason, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of MEIS.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid EDI shipping bills filed for export of goods, due to oversight of petitioner’s Customs House Agent (CHA), shipping bill was further processed with default option ‘NO’ without selection ‘Yes’ for making exports under reward scheme i.e. MEIS as a result of which exports are not considered for export incentive benefit which otherwise the petitioners are entitled for the same.

10. On realising this t