ROSCTL benefit cannot be denied for a clerical shipping bill error when substantive export entitlement is undisputed.

ROSCTL benefit could not be denied where the exporter's substantive entitlement was undisputed and the shipping bill contained only an inadvertent wrong scheme code. The Court treated the scheme as a beneficial export promotion measure and found that a purely clerical error did not justify refusal of the benefit. It also held that the existence of an alternate remedy under the Foreign Trade Policy did not defeat relief on the facts. The denial of ROSCTL was therefore set aside and the exporter was held entitled to the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the ROSCTL benefit notwithstanding an inadvertent wrong selection of the scheme code in the shipping bill, and whether the writ petition should fail on the ground of an alternate remedy under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: The petitioner's export under the ROSCTL scheme was not in dispute, and the error in the shipping bill arose from an inadvertent incorrect entry of the scheme code. The scheme was treated as a beneficial export promotion measure under the Foreign Trade Policy, and the denial of benefit on a purely clerical mistake was found unjustified. The Court also noted that the earlier decisions relied upon, though rendered in the context of another export incentive scheme, applied on principle because the underlying question concerned denial of a benefit for an inadvertent procedural error. The existence of an alternate remedy did not prevail over the substantive entitlement on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the ROSCTL benefit, and the refusal to grant the benefit was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficial export incentive cannot be denied where the exporter's substantive entitlement is undisputed and the claim was defeated only by an inadvertent clerical mistake in the shipping bill.

---