Procedural omission in shipping bills cannot defeat MEIS entitlement or bar amendment under Section 149.

A procedural omission in non-EDI shipping bills did not defeat entitlement to MEIS benefits where the exported goods were otherwise eligible and the export record showed verification; the declaration of intent in the Handbook of Procedures was treated as an administrative requirement, so the defect was only technical and the objection failed. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permitted amendment of shipping bills on the basis of existing documentary evidence, and a circular could not impose a time limit absent from the statute; the amendment request therefore could not be rejected on delay alone. The exporter was entitled to MEIS benefit and amendment of the shipping bills.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of the declaration of intent in non-EDI shipping bills for exports made during the initial period of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 disentitled the exporter from claiming MEIS benefits; (ii) Whether the shipping bills could be amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the circular-based time limit could defeat such amendment.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of the declaration of intent in non-EDI shipping bills for exports made during the initial period of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20 disentitled the exporter from claiming MEIS benefits.

Analysis: The entitlement under the MEIS depended on the nature of the exported goods and the destination market. The declaration required by Clause 3.14 of the Handbook of Procedures was treated as a procedural requirement introduced for administrative convenience. The exporters' omission to state the declaration in non-EDI shipping bills for the period before 1.6.2015 was held to be a technical defect, especially when the goods were otherwise eligible and the record showed examination and export verification.

Conclusion: The absence of the declaration did not extinguish the exporter's entitlement to MEIS benefits and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the shipping bills could be amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the circular-based time limit could defeat such amendment.

Analysis: Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits amendment of shipping bills on the basis of documentary evidence existing at the time of export and does not itself prescribe any limitation period. A circular cannot add a restriction or time limit not found in the parent statute. The authorities had themselves asked for removal of the defect and the exporter acted upon that communication, so the request for amendment could not be rejected on delay alone.

Conclusion: The shipping bills were amendable and the circular-imposed time limit could not bar relief.

Final Conclusion: The exporter was entitled to the MEIS benefit and to amendment of the shipping bills, and the refusal by the authorities could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission in a shipping bill cannot defeat a substantive export incentive claim where the exporter is otherwise eligible, and Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be curtailed by a circular imposing a limitation not contained in the statute.

---