DGFT must process MEIS benefits despite customs broker errors in shipping bills under Section 149

The Bombay HC ruled in favor of the petitioner seeking MEIS benefits after customs brokers erroneously indicated "N" instead of "Y" in shipping bills' digital reward column. Despite customs authorities allowing manual corrections under Section 149 of the Customs Act and subsequent electronic amendments, DGFT refused to process the application citing system limitations. The court held that DGFT officials cannot abdicate responsibility by claiming technological inadequacy, emphasizing that human intelligence must complement artificial intelligence to serve people. Technology should facilitate, not obstruct, legitimate business operations. The court directed DGFT to process the petitioner's MEIS scrip application within 15 days, noting no merit-based objections existed for denial.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for MEIS Scrips due to error in shipping bills.
2. Systemic inability to process amended shipping bills electronically.
3. Coordination between Customs Department and DGFT.
4. Implementation of Advisory No.7 of 2023.
5. Technological and bureaucratic challenges in leveraging technology for taxpayer service.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for MEIS Scrips due to error in shipping bills:

The Petitioner sought a writ directing the Respondents to accept amendments in three shipping bills and issue MEIS Scrips amounting to Rs. 1,61,34,190.00. The error arose when the Petitioner's Customs brokers inadvertently marked "N" instead of "Y" in the REWARD column, indicating no intention to claim MEIS benefits. Despite the Petitioner being eligible for MEIS, this error led to denial of benefits. The Petitioner corrected the error manually with approval from the Customs Authorities, but the DGFT refused to process these corrections electronically.

2. Systemic inability to process amended shipping bills electronically:

The Petitioner faced systemic issues as the DGFT portal was not equipped to handle manually amended shipping bills. Despite manual corrections approved by Customs, the electronic systems could not process these amendments, causing undue delay and hardship. The Petitioner's attempts to resolve this through various applications and communications with the authorities yielded no solution, highlighting a gap in the existing electronic processing systems.

3. Coordination between Customs Department and DGFT:

The judgment emphasized the lack of coordination between the Customs Department and DGFT, which hindered the processing of amended shipping bills. The Court referenced a similar case, Technocraft Industries (India) Limited, where it was noted that the disconnect between these departments stifled legitimate export claims. The Court stressed the need for integration between the departments to make the MEIS policy efficient and workable.

4. Implementation of Advisory No.7 of 2023:

The Directorate General of Systems and Data Management issued Advisory No.7 of 2023 to address post-EGM amendments of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The Advisory outlined procedures for handling such amendments and emphasized inter-departmental coordination. The Court noted that despite this Advisory, the DGFT had not updated its systems to align with the procedures, leaving the Petitioner's predicament unresolved.

5. Technological and bureaucratic challenges in leveraging technology for taxpayer service:

The judgment criticized the DGFT's refusal to process manually corrected shipping bills due to technological limitations. It stressed that technology should serve the people and not create barriers. The Court highlighted the need for human intelligence to complement artificial intelligence in resolving such issues. It directed the DGFT to update its systems in line with the Court's directions and the Advisory to prevent similar issues in the future.

Conclusion:

The Court directed the Respondents to process the Petitioner's application for MEIS Scrips within 15 days, without using systemic or technical issues as grounds for denial. It also mandated the DGFT to update its handling systems within 60 days to comply with the Court's directions and the Advisory. Additionally, the Court ordered the second Respondent to pay Rs. 50,000 in costs to the Petitioner, to be donated to Tata Memorial (Cancer) Hospital. The judgment underscored the importance of leveraging technology effectively to facilitate ease of doing business and ensure taxpayers receive their due benefits without unnecessary legal intervention.

---