TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom 'No' to 'Yes' in shipping bills. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant filed 29 Shipping Bills for export of floor coverings of jute/sisal/wool/100% rubber mats. All the exports covered under the 29 shipping bills were either under Drawback Scheme or EOU Scheme; and in all the shipping bills, the appellant has declared their intention to claim METS benefit. However, inadvertently in respective column of the shipping bills where it is asked as to whether the shipping bills need to the transmitted to DGFT, it was mentioned as 'N' instead of 'Y'. As a result, the shipping bills were not electronically transmitted to DGFT for processing METS scrips. The appellant could not file thei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipping bills. In fact the appellant actually has declared the intention to claim the METS benefit on the face of the shipping bills and it was only in the Column where it was asked as to whether the shipping needs to be electronically transferred to DGFT portal, the appellant inadvertently mentioned as 'N' instead of 'Y', which is only procedural irregularity as the substantial compliance of declaration of intention is made by the appellant on the face of the shipping bill itself. He further submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Pasha International vs. Commissioner of Customs: 2019 (365) ELT 669 (Mad.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to claim MEIS benefit on the front of the shipping bill which the Commissioner has ignored to notice. He further submitted that in an identical matters other ports are issuing NOC for amendment of shipping bills and he has produced on record one such NOC issued by Asst. Commissioner, Custom House, Krishnapatnam, wherein in identical facts change of reward details from 'No' to 'Yes' in the shipping bill was permitted. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the Commissioner has failed to notice that the appellant has declared their intention to claim METS benefits in all the shipping bills ....