AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3. (Exhibit-1). (b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 4 or his officers including Respondent No. 5 to amend the Shipping Bills manually and allow the Petitioners to claim benefit under the said MEIS scheme. (c) that this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to allow modification in the online system to enable the Petitioners to correct the technical error by allowing selection table "Yes" for shipping bill to be under reward scheme and process the application to grant export incentives under MEIS to the Petitioner or alternatively direct Respondent No. 4 and 5 to recall and amend the 91 Shipping Bills granting the MEIS benefit. (d) that this Hon'ble Court may allow prayer (a), (b) and (c) and direct the Respondents to grant the benefits due to them under MEIS scheme as prayed for in Ground F supra, as consequential relief...;" 3. Brief fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mittee vide letter dated 11.03.2019 and filed an application to seek policy/procedure relaxation in terms of para no. 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy to rectify the reward column from 'No' to 'Yes'. 11. Respondent no. 3 vide email dated 29.03.2019 asked the petitioners to remain personally present on 2.04.2019 on which day, the petitioner appeared before respondent no. 3 and made submissions. However, petitioner's claim was negated. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that on inquiry, it was informed that the claim was rejected because shipping bills indicating 'NO' were not amended to 'YES'. The petitioner therefore, vide letter dated 24.05.2019 made a request to respondent no. 4 for amending the Shipping Bills under section 149 of the Customs Act, 19672 to correct the inadvertent mistake of marking 'N' instead of 'Y'. 13. However respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 12.06.2019 refused to grant any permission to make such amendment relying on the Public Notice No. 40/2015-20 dated 09.10.2015 and Public Notice no. 47/2015-20 dated 08.12.2015. 14. Aggrieved by letter dated 12.06.2019, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Customs, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort is not in dispute, the petitioners are entitled for MEIS benefit. 24. Referring to para 3.04 of the Foreign Trade Policy it was submitted that the petitioners have satisfied all the conditions of the MEIS Scheme. 25. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati referred to the items listed in Appendix-3B of Foreign Trade Policy which are entitled for MEIS benefits to submit that the goods exported by the petitioners are covered within Appendix-3B and that they have earned the foreign exchange in respect of those exports. 26. It was further submitted that as per para 3.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy, wherever the rewards under MEIS is available to all countries, proof of landing is not required to be submitted. 27. It was submitted that the export made by the petitioners are not barred from rewards of MEIS Scheme as it does not fall within the categories/sectors enumerated in para 3.06 of the FTP as under: a) Supplies made from DTA units to SEZ units. b) Export of imported goods covered under paragraph 2.46 of FTP. c) Exports through trans-shipment, meaning thereby exports that are originating in third country but trans-shipped through India. d)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end the documents after the goods are exported on the basis of the documentary evidence on record, submitted that when amendment to shipping bill after export of the goods is sought, the same is governed by the proviso to section 149 and if the requirements of the proviso of section 149 are satisfied, the amendment has to be allowed. 32. It was further submitted that as per section 149 of the Customs Act, based on the export documents like ARE-1 and shipping bills, at the time of export, amendment to the shipping bills can be allowed and accordingly the amendment in the shipping bills have been allowed by respondent no. 5 , however physically copy of the amended shipping bills were not provided and MEIS benefit was not granted till date. It was therefore, submitted that rejection of MEIS benefit on the ground of procedural lapse is not tenable in eye of law and therefore the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 33. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati referred to para 2.58 of the FTP 2015-2020 which provides for exemption from policy/procedures and submitted that DGFT may in consultation with Policy Relaxation Committee, relax the provisions of policy or procedur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22, however, it was also informed to the petitioner that the system does not allow/permit any online amendment in shipping bills after completion of export and filing of EGM. 38. It was further submitted that in September, 2023, the Directorate General of Systems and Data Management, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India enabled the functionality in ICES for MEIS amendment post filing of EGM and accordingly, the Customs department amended the shipping bills of the petitioner and has already electronically transmitted the data in respect of the shipping bills of the petitioner to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. 39. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is eligible for the export benefit under the MEIS in law and as per the notification of the scheme. 40. Chapter 3 to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 provides for export incentives under MEIS to the exporters who are engaged in exports of notified goods/products to notified markets as listed in Appendix 3B. Further, the procedure required to be followed by an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exchange. Para 3.04 of the FTP reads as under: "3.04 Entitlement under MEIS Exports of notified goods/products with ITC[HS] code, to notified markets as listed in Appendix 3B, shall be rewarded under MEIS. Appendix 3B also lists the rate(s) of rewards on various notified products [ITC (HS) code wise). The basis of calculation of reward would be on realized FOB value of exports in free foreign exchange, or on FOB value of exports as given in the Shipping Bills in freely convertible foreign currencies, whichever is less, unless otherwise specified." 44. Items entitled for MEIS benefits are listed in Appendix-3B of the FTP as under: MEIS Sr. No. Handicraft Flag ITC HS 2017 ITC HS 2017 Description ITC HS 2012 ITC HS 2012 Description MEIS Rate 5420 76129090 Other 76129090 Other Containers: NES. 2 45. Thus the goods exported by the petitioners are covered within Appendix-3B and petitioner has earned the foreign exchange in respect of those exports. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have satisfied the substantive conditions for the entitlement of the benefit of MEIS Scheme. However, the only dispute per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the CESTAT fall into error in upholding the denial of the petitioner's claim for amendment of its shipping document under section 149 of the Customs Act." The court held thus: "7. In the present case, the appellant had been consistently dealing with the same goods and exporting them previously for over three years. The pre-condition of a declaration along with the relative forms, for grant of benefit was introduced on 142008 through an amendment to the Handbook of Procedures. It is now settled law that the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, the rules or regulations framed thereunder and the export import policy have the force of law. Handbook of Procedures and the amendments carried out thereto are per se not declaration of law but only impose conditions which are to be fulfilled and otherwise conform to the requirements of law. Without making a deeper analysis of these legal provisions, the facts of this case reveal that the export goods are essentially agricultural produce and continued to be covered as an item eligible for benefit. At the time, just prior to 142008, the goods had been exported as free shipping bills. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard to the peculiar facts of the present case, the omission to file 'declaration of intent' when all other relevant material is available, is not fatal to the petitioner's case. As in the case of Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (supra), in the facts of the present case also, in all other respects, that is, as to whether the goods conform to the description in the shipping documents and the value, etc. continues to be ascertainable because the concerned bills, invoices and other shipping documents are available with the customs authorities. The respondents are, therefore, not justified in turning down the request to convert the shipping bills of the petitioner from free to MEIS and thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefits under the MEIS in respect of exports made under such shipping bills." 49. This Court in the case of Oriental Carbon And Chemicals Limited vs. Union Of India, reported in 2021 (377) E.L.T 850 (Guj) has held as under:- 21. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically permits amendment of the shipping bills even after the export on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot travel beyond the parent statute or impose a limitation or restriction not found in the parent statute. 25. This Court, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Lykis Limited, 2021 (2) TMI 261, has upheld the Tribunal's judgment holding that when no time limit is prescribed in Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, no such time limit can be fixed by way of a circular. 26. In the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Rubtech vs. UOI, (SCA No.21636 of2019, decided on 2.3.2021), this Court upheld that the Circular is ultra vires Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution and Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the said Circular cannot be relied upon. 27. In the present case, the authorities had themselves sought clarification from the DGFT as to whether such declaration was mandatory prior to 1.6.2015 and were awaiting such clarification. The authorities had even issued three scrips to the writ-applicant against six of its applications, which were later suspended while awaiting such clarification. Hence, it is not correct to blame the writ-applicant for not having sought amendment immediately. 28. Unlike in other cases, in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per the scheme of the MEIS. 32. The writ-applicant has been exporting the very same goods prior to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20, and claiming the benefits under the then extant Focus Market Scheme (FMS) and has subsequently also exported the very same goods and claimed the benefits under the MEIS scheme. 33. The only lapse is with regard to the inadvertent nonmention of the declaration of intent as per Clause 3.14 of the Handbook of Procedures during the period between 1.4.2015 and 31.3.2015, i.e. during the initial period of the FTP, 2015-20. 34. The writ-applicant's shipping bills were non-EDI only because the Mundra Port was not an EDI port. 35. This lapse being a technical or a procedural lapse, the writ-applicant should not be denied substantive benefits, as held by this Court in the case of Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 36. The authorities themselves were not sure whether the declaration was mandatory prior to 1.6.2015 as is evident from the following : (a) Public Notice No. 40/2015-20 dated 9.10.2015 wherein, in para 3, it is stated that such declaration is mandatory from 1.6.2015. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing bills, the benefit to flow of MEIS Scheme as it does not recognize the manual correction, the petitioner is deprived of such benefits as no technicality can mark the rights of the parties, which otherwise accrued under the substantive law. This Court has held as under:- "14. Having heard both the sides and also on a carefully considering the chronology of events, we notice that it is a genuine mistake on the part of the petitioner which has led the petitioner approaching this Court for prayer of permitting the bill manually. We notice that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had permitted the manual amendment of shipping bill in question being the shipping bill bearing No. 5 561585 dated 14.06.2018 while filing shipping bill online in EDI system of the customs inadvertently systems had got been corrected value of goods exported as has been noted by the PRC Committee in its meeting. A representation made had weighed with the said Committee. The Customs, Mundra had assessed and finalized the consignment, however, the amendment since had not been reflected in EDI systems of the DGFT, that resulted in preventing filing the MEIS claim. Hence, the Committee in its report dated 30.10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is no longer a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right and CENVAT credit earned under the erstwhile Central Excise Law is the property of the writ-applicants and it cannot be appropriated for merely failing to file a declaration in the absence of Law in this respect. Accordingly, respondent authorities were directed to permit the petitioner to allow the filing of declaration in form GST TRAN-1 so as to enable them to claim transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act. 54. This Court in case of M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd vs. Union Of India, reported in 2023 (4) TMI 789 in similar facts of granting benefit under RoDTEP scheme has issued the following directions:- "5. As the controversy unfolds as above, the court is of the view that the following directions would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly it is provided that, (i) The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the RoDTEP Scheme benefit in respect of the exports of white refined sugar at the rate permissible. Even if such benefit is not claimed or mentioned in the shipping bills, the pet....