The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of

industrial rubber goods as also rubberized fabrics and

miscellaneous rubber specialties that are suitably

classified under the Customs Tariff. The petitioner has

not been able to avail the benefit of Merchandise

Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) introduced under

chapter III of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for the

financial years between 2015 - 2016 and 2017 - 2018.

The petitioner has not been able to avail such benefit

because the petitioner, who operates under the

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), has not indicated the

option of intent to avail the benefit as required in law.

4

2.

The petitioner to avail this MEIS benefit had

to choose the option of 8Y9 as against the option of 8N9 in

the EDI Shipping Bills but the petitioner has chosen the

option of 8N9 indicating that it will not avail the benefit.

The petitioner9s case is that there is an inadvertent error

in choosing 8N9 over 8Y9, and the petitioner has been

repeatedly approaching the Customs Department for

amendment of the shipping bills to avail the benefit.

While the Deputy Commissioner [Exports] by order

dated

22.10.2020

has

rejected

the

petitioner9s

application for amendment of the EDI Shipping Bills on

the ground that the application is filed beyond the

period of three [3] years, the Joint Commissioner of

Customs, ICD, Whitefield has rejected another set of the

petitioner9s application for correction of the shipping

bills by the order dated 28.10.2020. The petitioner has

called in question both these orders before the

competent Appellate Authority and these appeals are

pending consideration.

5

3.

However, the petitioner, in the light of the

observation in the aforesaid Joint Commissioner9s order

dated 28.10.2020, has simultaneously approached the

Policy Relaxation Committee under the Director General

of Foreign Trade (the first respondent is hereafter

referred to as PRC - DGFT) for allowing MEIS benefit.

The petitioner9s request is considered by PRC on

26.10.2021 and is rejected by the decision, which reads

as under:

<The Committee having discussed the case at

length observed that conversion from 8N9 to 8Y9 as

well as reflection of such manual amendments in the

automated system is not possible. Accordingly, it

found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the

request of the firm.=

Hence, the petitioner has called in question both the

rejection of the applications by the Custom authorities

for correction of the EDI Shipping bills and the decision

of the PRC-DGFT.

6

4.

Sri. V.Raghuraman, the learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner, submits that the choice of 8N9

while entering the data in EDI Shipping Bills is an

inadvertent error. The petitioner, who is undisputedly

an exporter of rubber products as aforesaid and is

entitled for the MEIS benefits, has submitted an

application before the Customs Authorities, and has

later submitted an application with the PRC-DGFT. The

petitioner did not realize that its ministerial staff had

erred in making this choice until 2017 and the moment

this error is realized, representations are submitted to

the Customs Authorities..

5.

Sri. V.Raghuraman submits that in cases

where there is bonafide or inadvertent error, the

different High Courts, including this High Court, has

directed the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to

allow the benefit under MEIS. He submits that while

7

this Court in M/s. Biocon Limited Vs. Director

General of Foreign Trade and Others¹ has granted

relief as aforesaid in the case of Non-EDI Shipping Bills,

the other High Courts, more specifically, the High Court

of Orissa in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd Vs.

Director General of Foreign Trade and Others² has

granted similar benefit even for EDI Shipping Bills with

the concerned establishing inadvertence in the choice.

He emphasizes that this Court, in the circumstances of

the present case, must also be persuaded to grant

similar relief to the petitioner.

6.

Ms. K.Sarojini Muthanna, the learne