TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P Scheme was announced which was supposed to subsume the RoSCTL Scheme but the same was not done and Notifications dated 13.08.2021, 17.08.2021, 23.09.2021 and 24.09.2021 as well as Circular dated 30.09.2021 in relation to the procedures under the RoSCTL Scheme and RoDTEP Scheme were issued by the respondents, pursuant to which, exporters of textile articles were supposed to declare 'Yes' against the column for RoDTEP in the shipping bills for the purpose of availing RoSCTL benefits. The petitioner who exported textile during the period January 2021 to September 2021 vide subject 28 Shipping bills at Annexure - H was supposed to declare 'Yes' against the column for RoDTEP in the Shipping bills, but due to oversight and inadvertence, the Customs broker of the petitioner declared 'N' in the RoDTEP column. However, a perusal of the 'Marks and numbers' column and 'Reward benefit' column indicated that the petitioner intended to claim drawback benefits under the RoSCTL Scheme. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his request to amend the Shipping bills were not acceded to by the respondents despite repeated representations, letters, personal meetings, etc., and instead, the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) No. 16328 of 2020 (K.I. International Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and another) dated 23.06.2021 [(2021 (378) E.L.T. 285 (Mad)] and yet another decision of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 2085 of 2022 (Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited Vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi and others) dated 21.02.2022. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though these cases were in the context of MEIS scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, the ratio therein will squarely apply to the facts of the present case, as ROSCTL scheme is another scheme under the Foreign Trade Policy. 6. Opposing the prayer, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of review before the 2nd respondent / the DGFT Policy Relaxation Committee, in terms of paragraph No. 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy and therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition is without merits and the petitioner should be directed to approach the 2nd respondent to file appropriate application in terms of the aforesaid provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of this writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Madras High Court allowed the petition and granted the benefit of the RoSCTL Scheme in favour of the writ petitioner by permitting amendment of the Shipping bills. 7. Under similar circumstances arising out of the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) which was also introduced under the Foreign Trade Policy, this Court in Suretex's case supra has held as under: "10. This Court must observe at the outset that it is undisputed that the Handbook of Procedures [HoP], with effect from 01.06.2015, mandated a declaration that an exporter 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 claimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e option 'N' is chosen but with the declaration to avail benefit in the case of Non-EDI shipping bills, the similar benefit to an exporter operating under EDI shipping bills cannot be denied only because a declaration of the intent to avail the benefit is not made. This would be especially so if it is uncontested that an exporter under the EDI shipping bills did not have the option of making the declaration other than in choosing 'Y' over 'N' to the intent to avail the MEIS benefit under the EDI mode. There would be no reasonable justification to sustain this classification. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded to opine that an exporter operating under EDI shipping bills would not be entitled for the MEIS benefit if there is an inadvertent error in choosing the option. 14. The petitioner has first approached the Customs Authorities under Section 149 of the Customs Act 1962 with different applications for amendment of the shipping bills. One application is rejected on the ground of limitation and the other application is rejected with the opinion that the petitioner should approach PRC-DGFT. It is thereafter the petitioner has approached PRC-DGFT which has rejected the request ....