MEIS benefits and writ relief: inadvertent EDI error cannot defeat export incentive claims where no separate declaration existed.

An exporter was found entitled to MEIS benefits despite marking "N" in the EDI shipping bill reward column, because the record showed inadvertent error and the EDI system then did not provide a separate declaration mechanism. The rejection by the policy relaxation committee was set aside, as a formalistic denial would create an unreasonable distinction where comparable relief had been granted in similar cases. The Court also held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself bar writ jurisdiction, and interference under Article 226 was justified on the facts. MEIS relief was directed to be extended subject to withdrawal of pending appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an exporter using EDI shipping bills is entitled to claim MEIS benefits where the option marked was "N" instead of "Y" because of an inadvertent error; (ii) whether the availability of an alternative remedy justified refusal of writ relief.

Issue (i): Whether an exporter using EDI shipping bills is entitled to claim MEIS benefits where the option marked was "N" instead of "Y" because of an inadvertent error.

Analysis: The relevant policy required declaration of intent to claim MEIS, but for EDI shipping bills the only method available prior to amendment was ticking "Y" or "N" in the reward column. The Court noted that the same relief had been extended in comparable cases where inadvertent error was established. Denial of MEIS benefit merely because the declaration was embedded in the EDI option, when no separate declaration was available, would create an unreasonable classification. The petitioner's prior attempts to rectify the shipping bills and subsequent approach to the relaxation committee were treated as circumstances supporting inadvertence. The committee's rejection on the ground that the system could not be manually corrected did not address these relevant factors.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to MEIS benefits notwithstanding the EDI entry of "N", subject to withdrawal of pending appeals.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an alternative remedy justified refusal of writ relief.

Analysis: The Court held that the mere existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since the petitioner had established inadvertence and had sufficiently explained the delay by first approaching the customs authorities and then the policy committee, the case warranted interference under Article 226. The earlier orders of the customs authorities were therefore not treated as a reason to deny relief.

Conclusion: Writ relief was held maintainable and the alternative-remedy objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining judicial intervention, the rejection by the policy relaxation committee was set aside, and MEIS benefits were directed to be extended on fulfillment of the stipulated condition regarding withdrawal of pending appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exporter establishes inadvertent error in making the EDI reward-selection entry and the EDI regime did not provide any separate declaration mechanism, MEIS benefit cannot be denied on a formalistic distinction, and writ relief may be granted despite the existence of an alternative remedy when the relevant facts justify intervention.

---