Court quashes order, mandates amendment for MEIS benefit, emphasizing error should not impede entitlement.

The court quashed the order rejecting the request to amend the shipping bill due to an inadvertent omission in claiming benefit under the MEIS scheme. A mandamus was issued to the second respondent to make the necessary amendments as advised by the petitioner, emphasizing that such errors should not impede entitlement consideration under the MEIS scheme. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner's inadvertent omission in claiming benefit under the MEIS scheme while filing a shipping bill. Rejection of the petitioner's request for amending the bill by the second respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in exporting leather shoes, filed a shipping bill claiming duty drawback but omitted to select 'YES' for availing the MEIS benefit. The petitioner sought to amend the bill, as advised by the DGFT, to rectify the error. However, the second respondent rejected the request for amendment, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

The court considered the issue of whether the inadvertent error in not claiming MEIS benefit was fatal to the claim. Referring to previous judgments, the court noted that such errors should not hinder the consideration of entitlement on merits. The court emphasized that the benefit of the MEIS scheme is subject to verification and acceptance by the DGFT, and the error should not obstruct the assessment of entitlement.

Based on the discussion, the court quashed the impugned order rejecting the request for amending the shipping bill and issued a mandamus to the second respondent to make the necessary amendments as requested by the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed in this matter.

---