IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.07.2022 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.No25860 of 2021 M/s Gupta Hair Products (P) Ltd.

Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mr.Mohana Gupta Madupalli

279, Sydenham's Road, Nehru Timber Market, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112 ... Petitioner Versus

1. The Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Shastri Bhawan Annex, No.26, Haddows Road, Chennai-600014. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, P/o The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam,530035 (R.3 impleaded vide order dated 03.03.2022 made in WMP No.2271/2022 in WP No.25860/2021) .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to sanction the benefits under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) in terms Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 within a time bound manner.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Derrick Sam For Respondents : Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari Senior Panel Counsel For R.1 and R.2 Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the second respondent to sanction the benefits under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) in terms of Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 within a time bound manner.

2. The petitioner is an exporter of human hair and they are entitled to the benefits of the export incentive scheme called Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS). In the shipping bill, for the subject exports, where incentive sought for by the petitioner, has not been considered by the respondents, the petitioner has made a categorical stand that they intend to claim rewards under merchandise exports from India scheme (MEIS).

3. By inadvertence, in the shipping bills submitted through on-line for the subject export, the petitioner has stated “ No “ which is the default option with regard to whether the petitioner intends to claim rewards and merchandise exports from India scheme or not. However, the same has been amended subsequently by the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs on 31.07.2019 and it has been amended to “Yes” . 4. The respondents have not processed the petitioner's application for Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) on the ground that in the shipping bill, they have declared as “No” with regard to their intention to claim the benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme and further, the amendment dated 31.07.2019 having been done manually and not in electronic form, the respondents have refused to consider the petitioner's request for entitlement under Merchandise Exporters from India Scheme.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents reiterating the contentions of the respondents as seen from the communications which have been filed along with the writ petition. The relevant portion of their contentions is found in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, which is extracted hereunder:-

“ 11. The Hon'ble Court is requested to make the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Vishakhapatnam as the respondents, since the Customs office has manually amended the Shipping bill as is evident by their certificate dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31.07.2019, thereby changing the declaration under Scheme from “No” to “Yes”, however, Customs has not transmitted the Shipping bill to the DGFT server. It is submitted that once the electronic data of the shipping bill is received from Customs server, only then can the application of the firm would be materially present before the respondents to examine and pass suitable orders.

12. I humbly submit that in the absence of electronic data of the impugned shipping bill from Customs, the request of the petitioner for i