Export incentive eligibility preserved where logistics or FTWZ intermediary only facilitated shipment and did not alter the exporter's status.

Export incentive eligibility under the Foreign Trade Policy depends on the character of the transaction: where goods are exported to a foreign buyer, foreign exchange is realised, and a domestic logistics or FTWZ entity merely facilitates warehousing or shipment, MEIS/Duty Credit Scrip benefits cannot be denied solely because shipping documents refer to that intermediary. Misdescription in the shipping bill does not change the exporter's status or attract exclusions meant for DTA-to-SEZ supplies, trans-shipment, or exports by FTWZ units. On that footing, the cancellation of the issued scrips and the appellate affirmation were unsustainable and the benefit had to be restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to Duty Credit Scrips under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme despite the shipment being routed through a logistics/FTWZ entity and described in shipping documents as involving that entity. (ii) Whether the cancellation of the already issued scrips and the appellate order were sustainable in light of the Foreign Trade Policy and the documentary record.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to Duty Credit Scrips under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme despite the shipment being routed through a logistics/FTWZ entity and described in shipping documents as involving that entity.

Analysis: The Foreign Trade Policy rewards exports of notified goods realised in free foreign exchange, while excluding specified categories such as supplies from DTA to SEZ, exports through trans-shipment, and exports made by units in FTWZ. On the facts, the documents showed a genuine export transaction to a foreign buyer, full foreign exchange realization, and use of the logistics/FTWZ entity only as a facilitative warehousing and shipping intermediary. The misdescription in the shipping bill did not alter the real character of the transaction or convert the exporter into an FTWZ unit.

Conclusion: The petitioner remained eligible for the MEIS benefit and the exclusion clauses did not apply.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation of the already issued scrips and the appellate order were sustainable in light of the Foreign Trade Policy and the documentary record.

Analysis: The cancellation proceeded on an incorrect appreciation of the transaction and did not properly apply the governing policy or the earlier judicial interpretation on similar facts. The record established that the petitioner was the actual exporter, that the foreign buyer was abroad, and that the logistics entity merely facilitated shipment. In these circumstances, cancellation of the scrips and the appellate affirmation could not stand.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the appellate order were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's export transaction qualified for the export incentive scheme, and the authorities were required to restore the benefit by revalidating the scrips.

Ratio Decidendi: Where documentary material establishes that goods were exported to a foreign buyer and a domestic logistics or FTWZ entity merely facilitated warehousing or shipment, the transaction cannot be denied export incentive benefits merely because the shipping documents refer to that intermediary or because the export was routed through it.

---