MEIS eligibility cannot be denied for lack of EPCES registration where the governing policy recognised multiple Registering Authorities.

MEIS claims under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 could not be rejected merely because the exporter lacked an EPCES RCMC during the export period, as Appendix 2T recognised more than one Registering Authority, including FIEO and EPCES. A 100% EOU was not required under that policy to register only with EPCES, and the later policy regime imposing a compulsory EPCES registration requirement could not be applied retrospectively to earlier claims. The rejection therefore rested on a misconstruction of the governing policy framework and was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of MEIS scrip applications on the ground that the petitioner did not hold a valid RCMC with EPCES during the export period was sustainable under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20.

Analysis: The relevant policy provisions recognised more than one Registering Authority, including FIEO and EPCES, and required an exporter seeking FTP benefits to furnish an RCMC issued by the competent authority unless specifically exempted. Appendix 2T to the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 identified FIEO and EPCES as notified Registering Authorities, and there was no requirement under that policy that a 100% EOU had to be registered only with EPCES. The impugned rejection proceeded on a mistaken reading of Appendix 2T from a later policy regime, which introduced a compulsory EPCES registration requirement. That later requirement could not be applied to claims governed by the earlier policy period. The rejection therefore rested on a misconstruction of the governing policy framework.

Conclusion: The rejection of the MEIS claims on the ground of absence of EPCES registration was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to relief.

---