TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Merchandise Export from India Scheme entitlement: ministerial electronic errors cannot defeat claims; applicants permitted to resubmit for adjudication.</h1> Territorial jurisdiction for MEIS claims lies where the Regional Authority sits; Customs officers act as ministerial forwarding authorities, so cause of ... Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 cause of action arising where Regional Authority sits - Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) entitlement despite technical or ministerial error - Inadvertent clerical error / electronic default in EDI filing and correction - Customs officer as forwarding authority / ministerial role of Customs in transmission of shipping bills - Regional Authority of DGFT as competent authority to adjudicate MEIS claims - Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 - Chapter 3, Handbook of Procedures procedure for claiming MEIS - HELD THAT:- No manner of doubt in the facts that the Custom Officer at Gujarat is merely a forwarding authority of the application in question. Once it is digitally signed and uploaded online, it has to be forwarded to the concerned Regional Authority of the DGFT for taking further appropriate action on the same. Clearly in order to seek the benefit of the scheme, the Competent Authority being the Regional Authority, Jaipur part cause of action, if not all, arises in the State of Rajasthan. There is tacit admission in the reply, as above, on the part of the respondents. Had the application been filed before the Customs Officer opting ‘Y’, in that event, Regional Authority would have had the further jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Thus, these writ petitions can be entertained by this Court. Furthermore, it is not even the case of the respondents that this court is denuded of its territorial jurisdiction qua the respondent No.4 i.e., the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, who is Regional Authority being located at Jaipur, which is in Rajasthan. The Regional Authority being the final Competent Authority to adjudicate on the matter, we see no reason why the instant set of writ petitions cannot be entertained. Accordingly, it is so ruled and the preliminary objection is found to be not maintainable and over ruled. Speaking on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on judgments rendered by the different High Courts i.e. the Madras High Court, Gujarat High Court, Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court and submits that all of them have been unison in opining that a benefit, if otherwise a person or entity is entitled, once the substantive condition stands satisfied, cannot be denied due to technical errors or any ministerial default and/or any lacunae caused either by electronic system or human inadvertence. On being confronted with the ratio rendered in the judgments ibid, the respondents would submit that as per the principle enunciated therein, there is no dispute that they hold the field even as on today. None of these judgments have been challenged in the Supreme Court, he would respond on a court query. Thus, we see no reason why the benefit thereof be not given to the petitioners therein. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed with a direction to respondent No.4 i.e. DGFT that the petitioners be allowed to resubmit their online applications to seek benefit of Merchandise Export of India Scheme by converting their option from N to Y and the same be thereafter processed by the Competent Authority i.e. Joint Director of Foreign Trade/Regional Authority at Jaipur in accordance with law. Issues: (i) Whether this High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging non-transmission/non-processing of shipping bills for MEIS benefits where the Regional Authority (DGFT, Jaipur) is located in Rajasthan; (ii) Whether petitioners entitled to have MEIS benefit claims considered despite inadvertent clerical/electronic error in marking the shipping bill (option N instead of Y) and whether they can be allowed to resubmit/modify the online option for processing by the Regional Authority.Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before the Rajasthan High Court on territorial jurisdiction grounds.Analysis: The forwarding role of the Customs officer in Gujarat under the online EDI scheme is ministerial; the ultimate authority to adjudicate entitlement to MEIS benefits lies with the Regional Authority of DGFT located at Jaipur. The petition pleads that part cause of action arises in Rajasthan because the Regional Authority is the competent body to process and adjudicate the MEIS claims.Conclusion: Territorial jurisdiction objection is overruled; the writ petitions are maintainable before the Rajasthan High Court.Issue (ii): Whether petitioners can have their MEIS claims considered despite an inadvertent omission/clerical error in the online declaration and be permitted to resubmit/convert the option from N to Y for processing by DGFT RA Jaipur.Analysis: Precedent from multiple High Courts supports allowing claims where substantive entitlement exists and denial arises from technical or ministerial electronic/default errors. Section 149 (customs amendment/rectification mechanism) and the electronic filing framework (EDI) permit correction of such inadvertent errors and transmission to the Regional Authority for adjudication. The petitioners have shown that the omission was inadvertent and that other uploaded particulars manifest intention to claim MEIS benefits; the competent authority (RA Jaipur) is directed to process the corrected/resubmitted applications in accordance with law.Conclusion: Petitioners are entitled to resubmit/convert the online option from N to Y and have their MEIS claims processed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade/Regional Authority at Jaipur; writ petitions allowed on merits in favour of the petitioners.Final Conclusion: The petitions are allowed: territorial jurisdiction is proper in Rajasthan and substantive relief is granted permitting curative resubmission and processing of MEIS claims by the competent Regional Authority; no costs awarded.Ratio Decidendi: Where a substantive entitlement to export incentive exists, denial based solely on an inadvertent electronic or clerical omission in the online declaration is not justified; such ministerial/technical lapses are rectifiable and the competent Regional Authority must consider corrected/resubmitted claims under the statutory and policy framework governing MEIS.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
