TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v., Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv., Rajat Vaishnaw, Adv., Abhyudey Kabra, Adv. ORDER PER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal calls in question the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, rendered on 02.08.2021 in Writ Petition No. 4095 of 2019, by which the writ petition instituted by the appellant was dismissed. The High Court took the view that the error which had crept in while filing of shipping bills was attributable to the customs broker, and that the appellant, if so advised, could pursue his remedies against the broker but no relief could be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. The facts are largely undisputed. The appellant is a private company engaged in the export of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the system permitted no manual intervention and that unless the shipping bills were originally transmitted with the entry "Yes", they could not be processed. The appellant as a consequence, was compelled to approach the Policy Relaxation Committee (hereinafter referred to as "PRC") on 05.12.2018. The PRC, however, by a cryptic email dated 15.03.2019, rejected the claim, stating merely that no merit or hardship was made out. No reasons were assigned, nor was the appellant afforded an opportunity of being heard. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant instituted Writ Petition No. 4095 of 2019 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. During its pendency, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in Portes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess "Yes" was so marked, the DGFT system could not accept the claim or process the claim, and no manual over-writing was permissible. It was urged that MEIS is a policy incentive, and strict compliance with procedure is mandatory. The PRC, being the competent authority, considered the matter and rejected it. The High Court was, therefore, correct in declining to grant relief. 10. The principal question for consideration is whether an inadvertent error in the shipping bills, which was permitted to be corrected under Section 149 of the Customs Act, can defeat an exporter's claim under the MEIS? 11. This issue has received judicial consideration in a line of decisions of the Bombay High Court. In Portescap India Private Limited (supra), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... systemic constraints cannot override statutory entitlements. The High Court went to the extent of imposing costs upon the DGFT. While we do not consider it necessary to adopt that course, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the principle enunciated that beneficial schemes must be construed liberally and that procedural lapses, once rectified, cannot be allowed to defeat substantive rights. 14. These decisions, read together, demonstrate a consistent judicial approach that distinguishes between procedural formalities and substantive entitlements. The scheme under Chapter 3 of the FTP is a beneficial one, intended to reward exporters. Once exports are genuine and fall within the notified category, inadvertent mistakes of proced....