TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4) O R D E R The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of industrial rubber goods as also rubberized fabrics and miscellaneous rubber specialties that are suitably classified under the Customs Tariff. The petitioner has not been able to avail the benefit of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) introduced under chapter III of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for the financial years between 2015 - 2016 and 2017 - 2018. The petitioner has not been able to avail such benefit because the petitioner, who operates under the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), has not indicated the option of intent to avail the benefit as required in law. 2. The petitioner to avail this MEIS benefit had to choose the option of 'Y' as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts in the automated system is not possible. Accordingly, it found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the request of the firm." Hence, the petitioner has called in question both the rejection of the applications by the Custom authorities for correction of the EDI Shipping bills and the decision of the PRC-DGFT. 4. Sri. V.Raghuraman, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the choice of 'N' while entering the data in EDI Shipping Bills is an inadvertent error. The petitioner, who is undisputedly an exporter of rubber products as aforesaid and is entitled for the MEIS benefits, has submitted an application before the Customs Authorities, and has later submitted an application with the PRC-DGFT. The pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aration, the petitioner cannot contend that the error is inadvertent. 7. Ms. K.Sarojini Muthanna also submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy and in elaboration she submits that the petitioner has impugned the orders of PRC, but given the provisions of Clause 2.58 and 2.59 of the Handbook of procedures, the petitioner could approach the DGFT for appropriate relief. The petitioner has not established exceptional circumstance to justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative remedy is available. 8. Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, the learned Central Government Counsel for the Custom Department/its Authorities, does not dispute that the petitioner's appeal as against the orders dated 22.10.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porter intends to claim rewards under MEIS. But this HoP did not enable this declaration under the EDI Shipping Bills until the HoP was amended with effect from 05.12.2017. The only manner of indicating the choice in the EDI Shipping Bill was to choose the option as aforesaid unlike in manual or non-EDI mode. The terms of the HoP on declaration, prior to amendment in 05.12.2017 and subsequent thereto read as under: Prior to Amendment w.e.f 05.12.2017 Post Amendment w.e.f 05.12.2017 (a) Export shipments filed under all categories of the Shipping Bills would need the following declaration on the Shipping Bills in order to be eligible for claiming rewards under MEIS: "We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports From India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to avail remedy under MEIS on the ground of inadvertent error. It is also undisputed that the EDI Shipping Bills do not provide for a separate declaration that the exporter intends to avail the MEIS benefit as is provided for Non-EDI Shipping Bills. 12. In the light of the rival submissions, the question for consideration would be: whether the petitioner, who relies on EDI Shipping Bills, must be denied the MEIS benefit if inadvertence is established and the delay in seeking the benefit is also explained. This would be in addition to the question: whether this Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or direct the petitioner to approach DGFT. 13. This Court must opine that if inadvertent error is the prem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that could point to an inadvertent error. 15. Further, it undisputed that the petitioner, but for the error in making a choice of entering 'N' over 'Y', would be entitled for the benefit of the MESI Scheme. It would be difficult to believe that the petitioner, even if entitled for MESI benefit, would have chosen to give up the benefit unless it was for inadvertent error. These must also be relevant factors in assessing whether there is a bonafide and inadvertent error in making the choice. The PRC of the DGRT has not considered these circumstances in rejecting the petitioner's request for MESI rewards. 16. The respondent contends that the petitioner must be relegated to the alternative remedy before the DGFT under the relevant ....