MEIS export benefit claim cannot be rejected for a mere electronic shipping bill omission when intention to claim is otherwise clear.

Denial of MEIS export benefits solely because the electronic shipping bills did not show a "Yes" declaration was held to be unsustainable where the bills otherwise indicated an intention to claim the scheme benefit and an amendment certificate had been issued. The omission was treated as a technical or clerical lapse, not a basis to defeat the claim. The Customs authority was required to give due weight to the amendment certificate and reconsider the export incentive application afresh, rather than reject it on a purely electronic filing defect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be denied MEIS export benefits merely because the electronic shipping bills did not reflect a "Yes" declaration, despite other particulars showing an intention to claim the scheme benefit and a manual amendment certificate having been issued under Section 149 of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The shipping bills contained sufficient material indicating the petitioner's intention to claim MEIS benefits, and the omission to tick the relevant box in the EDI portal was only a technical lapse. The Customs authority had already issued a certificate of amendment, though the electronic system did not permit the change because the EGM had been closed. In these circumstances, denial of the export incentive solely on account of an inadvertent clerical or electronic omission was not justified. The claim was therefore required to be examined afresh, giving due regard to the amendment certificate and the petitioner's claim.

Conclusion: The refusal to process the MEIS claim on a purely technical ground was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to have the claim reconsidered afresh.

---