Court quashes decision, grants MEIS benefits, directs proof of withdrawal.

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the decision of the Policy Relaxation Committee under the Director General of Foreign Trade (PRC-DGFT), and directed the petitioner to provide proof of withdrawal of pending appeals within eight weeks for availing Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefits. The Court instructed the respondents to facilitate the extension of MEIS rewards to the petitioner in compliance with the order, finding the petitioner entitled to the benefits due to a genuine error and rejecting the argument for seeking an alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues:
1. Availment of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefit for financial years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018.
2. Rejection of applications for amendment of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Shipping Bills.
3. Rejection of MEIS benefit by the Policy Relaxation Committee under the Director General of Foreign Trade (PRC-DGFT).
4. Legal implications of inadvertent error in choosing 'N' over 'Y' in the EDI Shipping Bills.
5. Alternative remedy available to the petitioner before the DGFT.
6. Examination of delay in seeking benefit and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing industrial rubber goods, sought MEIS benefit for specific financial years but faced issues due to inadvertently choosing 'N' instead of 'Y' in the EDI Shipping Bills. The petitioner approached Customs Authorities for amendment, which were rejected on grounds of delay. Subsequently, the PRC-DGFT also denied the benefit citing technical limitations.

2. The petitioner argued that the error was unintentional and cited precedents where Courts directed DGFT to grant MEIS benefits in similar cases. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to declare intent for MEIS rewards as required until a specific date. The Central Government Counsel highlighted the delay in seeking corrections post-EDI transactions between 2015-2018.

3. The Court examined the pre and post-amendment provisions of the Handbook of Procedures related to MEIS declarations. It noted previous judgments granting benefits to exporters for inadvertent errors, especially in Non-EDI Shipping Bills. The Court opined that denial of MEIS benefit solely based on lack of declaration for EDI Shipping Bills was unjustified.

4. Considering the circumstances, the Court found the petitioner entitled to MEIS benefits due to a genuine error and explained delay. It rejected the argument of relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy, emphasizing the established grounds for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the PRC-DGFT decision, and directed the petitioner to provide proof of withdrawal of pending appeals within eight weeks for availing MEIS benefits. The Court instructed the respondents to facilitate the extension of MEIS rewards to the petitioner in compliance with the order.

---