100% EOU granted MEIS benefits despite shipping bill declaration failure as procedural error shouldn't deny substantive compliance

Delhi HC allowed petition by 100% EOU seeking MEIS benefits despite failure to declare intent in shipping bills. Court held that inadvertent, bona fide procedural error should not deny benefits on hyper-technical grounds when all substantive requirements were met. Petitioner had rectified deficiencies through Section 149 Customs Act amendments, but system errors prevented online reapplication. Court noted rejection was due to system issues beyond petitioner's control and directed respondents to process MEIS claims electronically/manually for all 17 shipping bills, finding substantive compliance sufficient despite procedural lapses.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility for MEIS benefits due to incorrect declaration of intent on shipping bills.
2. Rejection of MEIS claims by authorities despite rectification of errors.
3. System error preventing re-application for MEIS benefits.
4. Review of PRC decisions on MEIS claims.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, an Export Oriented Unit, mistakenly marked "N" instead of "Y" for MEIS benefits on shipping bills. Despite rectifying the error under Section 149 of the Customs Act, authorities rejected MEIS claims for all 17 shipping bills due to non-compliance with deficiency notices within timelines.

2. The court found the rejection based on hyper-technical grounds unjust, as the petitioner fulfilled MEIS requirements and rectified errors. The issuance of amendment certificates for deficient bills should have sufficed, and the rejection due to a system error beyond the petitioner's control was deemed unreasonable.

3. The petitioner's inability to reapply for MEIS benefits due to a system error was highlighted. Even though the online request for re-validation was unresolved, the court noted that the petitioner had received amendment certificates for 7 shipping bills, making them eligible for MEIS benefits as per relevant policy guidelines.

4. The court criticized the Policy Relaxation Committee's refusal to re-validate shipping bills, emphasizing the inadvertent nature of the error and subsequent rectification. The court set aside the impugned orders, directing authorities to consider the petitioner's MEIS claims for all 17 shipping bills as per established public notices.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, stressing the petitioner's fulfillment of MEIS requirements and rectification efforts. The authorities were instructed to process the MEIS application for all 17 shipping bills, overturning the previous rejections based on technicalities and system errors.

---