Procedural omission in shipping bills cannot defeat Chapter 3 export benefits where substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

Rejection of NOC for Chapter 3 export benefits was found unjustified where the shipping bills omitted the intent declaration during the transition period. The omission was treated as procedural, not substantive, because the exporter remained under the EOU regime until the final exit order was issued, and that administrative delay could not prejudice entitlement. Where the substantive conditions for the benefit are otherwise met, failure to comply with a procedural declaration requirement cannot by itself defeat the claim. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of the request for NOC on the sole ground of non-filing of intent declaration in the shipping bills was justified, and whether the appellant could be denied Chapter 3 export benefits on that procedural lapse.

Analysis: The request for NOC was rejected only because the shipping bills filed during the transition period did not contain the intent declaration. The omission was procedural in nature. The appellant had continued to remain under the EOU regime until the final exit order was issued, and the delay in issuance of that order could not be used to prejudice the appellant. Where the availability of the substantive benefit is otherwise established, failure to comply with a procedural declaration requirement cannot be treated as a valid ground to deny the benefit.

Conclusion: The rejection of NOC was not justified. The procedural lapse could not defeat the substantive entitlement, and the appeal was allowed.

---