Procedural defects in claim declarations do not negate eligibility for statutory benefits if substantive compliance is evident.

JUDGMENT

[Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2020, 10/2020, 2/2021, 3/2021, 2/2022]

S.V.Bhatti, J.

Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin/Revenue is the appellant in the batch of appeals filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the orders of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) Regional Bench, Bangalore (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The respondents/exporters though are distinct entities, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since the issues are identical in all the appeals. The details of the exporters and the orders against which the appeals are filed are stated thus:

2. The respondents have exported a few products as detailed in respective Appellate orders of the Tribunal. The respondents to claim the benefit of MEIS Scheme and correct an inadvertent mistake that happened during electronically filling up the shipping bills, requested for amendment of one of the fields in the templates provided for in this behalf. The column deals with declaring the intention to claim MEIS benefit, the exporters have to tick the box having ‘Y’. In the cases on hand, whether have not answered or alternatively the exporters have ticked the box shown against ‘N’. The exporters, it is alleged, satisfied all the requirements for availing scrip benefit under MEIS. The request of exporters was rejected by the Primary and Appellate Authorities. The Tribunal, through the orders impugned in the appeals, allowed and for illustrative purposes, we excerpt para 6 in the order of Tribunal No.21021/2019 dated 21.11.2019 marked as Annexure- 1 in Customs Appeal no. 9/2020:

“6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner has failed to notice that the appellant has declared their intention to claim MEIS benefits in all the shipping bills which have been produced on record. The only lapse on the part of the appellant was that they have mentioned in the reward column as 'N' instead of 'Y', which is only a procedural defect. Further, I find that otherwise the appellant is entitled to claim MEIS benefit as per the export policy. Failure to mention 'Y' in the reward column of the shipping bill for availing the benefit under MEIS scheme can be corrected by amending the shipping bill as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case ofPasha International cited supra. Further, T find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ofKedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has also allowed the amendment even in a situation where there was no declaration of intention whereas in the present case, the appellant has made the declaration on the front page of the shipping bills regarding their intention to claim the MEIS benefit. Further, I find that the other ports have allowed the amendment of shipping bill in identical situation. I also find that the issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal rendered in the case ofM/s. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin vide Final Order No.20909/2019 dated 28.10.2019 and M/s. Kuruwa Enterprises & Ors. vs. CC, Cochin vide Final Order No.210216- 21018/2019 dated 19.11.2019 and by the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case ofMangalath Cashews & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that rejection of request for amendment of shipping bill by the Commissioner is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Custom Authorities to allow the amendment in the shipping bill as per the