Court Overturns MEIS Application Rejection; Orders NOCs for EDI Shipping Bills, Emphasizing Export Reward Scheme.

The HC quashed the rejection of the petitioner's MEIS applications due to procedural errors in shipping bills, emphasizing the scheme's objective to reward exporters. The court directed respondents to issue NOCs for EDI online shipping bills, allowing the petitioner to refile applications with evidence. The petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of applications under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) due to mis-declaration of intent.
2. Procedural requirements and errors in filing applications for MEIS benefits.
3. Jurisdiction and authority to amend shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act.
4. Substantive versus procedural requirements in claiming MEIS benefits.
5. Relief sought by the petitioner and adequacy of the reliefs claimed.
6. Precedents and judicial interpretations regarding procedural errors in MEIS claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Applications under MEIS:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its MEIS applications by the respondents on the grounds of mis-declaration of intent, thereby depriving the petitioner of benefits under the scheme. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus to direct the respondents to guide the petitioner for necessary modifications and allow MEIS benefits.

2. Procedural Requirements and Errors in Filing Applications:
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing and exporting electronic motors, had been exporting to notified markets and claiming MEIS benefits since 01.04.2015. The petitioner filed applications online for duty credit scrips but faced issues due to the manual entry requirement for Non-EDI shipping bills. The applications were rejected because the petitioner did not state the declaration of intent ("We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme") on the shipping bills. The petitioner highlighted difficulties such as errors in marking intent, issues with linking Electronic Bank Realization Certificate (EBRC), and system errors on the DGFT portal.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority to Amend Shipping Bills:
The petitioner’s application for amending a shipping bill under Section 149 of the Customs Act was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The Customs Department held that the remedy for such inadvertence was not within its purview under Section 149.

4. Substantive Versus Procedural Requirements:
The petitioner argued that the error of marking "N" (for No) instead of "Y" (for Yes) in the declaration of intent column was a procedural mistake. The petitioner cited precedents where courts allowed corrections in shipping bills for procedural errors, emphasizing the distinction between substantive conditions and procedural requirements. The petitioner referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner, highlighting that procedural infractions should not override substantive entitlements.

5. Relief Sought by the Petitioner and Adequacy of the Reliefs Claimed:
The petitioner sought directions for the respondents to guide and communicate necessary modifications to allow MEIS benefits. The respondents argued that the reliefs claimed were vague and insufficient. The court noted the procedural mistake and emphasized the fundamental objective of the MEIS scheme to reward exporters. Despite the poorly drafted reliefs, the court considered the petitioner's case due to the inherent objective of the scheme.

6. Precedents and Judicial Interpretations:
The court referred to similar cases decided by the High Courts of Kerala and Madras, where procedural errors in marking intent on shipping bills were addressed. The courts directed the issuance of No-Objection Certificates (NOC) to enable petitioners to claim MEIS benefits. The court found the facts in the present case identical to those precedents and concluded that the petitioner should be extended the benefit under MEIS.

Conclusion and Orders:
The court quashed the rejection letters/orders and directed the respondents to issue NOCs for EDI online shipping bills. The petitioner was allowed to file fresh applications with documentary evidence, and the respondents were directed to consider these applications afresh, providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms without any order as to costs.

---