Page 146 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

368 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

CASES CITED
Pasha International v. Commissioner — 2019 (365) E.L.T. 669 (Mad.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 6]
Global Calcium Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner — 2019 (370) E.L.T. 176 (Mad.)
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri G. Derrick Sam, for the Petitioner.
Shri Rajnish Pathiyil, CGSC, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, Learned Central Government Standing
Counsel accepts notice for the respondents.
2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for
the respondent.
3. By consent expressed by both Learned Counsels, the writ petition is
disposed even at the stage of admission.
4. The petitioner, engaged in the export of leather shoes, had filed a
shipping bill claiming duty drawback. The export transaction, the petitioner
states, was also entitled for benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India
Scheme (MEIS) notified under the Foreign Trade Policy. However, at the time of
filling of the shipping bill, the petitioner had inadvertently omitted to select
‘YES’ as an option for availing the MEIS benefit, on the online platform.
5. The entitlement to MEIS or otherwise is a matter to be examined by
the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) on an application made in this be-
half by the petitioner. The DGFT, when approached, advised the petitioner to
have the shipping bills amended by the Customs Authorities.
6. An application had thus come to be filed by the petitioner setting out
the sequence of events as above and seeking amendment of the Bill containing
the error. Upon consideration of the request made, the second respondent reject-
ed the same by order dated 18-11-2019, as against which the present writ petition
is filed.
1 6. This very issue as to whether the inadvertent error of not claiming
benefit under the MEIS was fatal to the claim itself has come to be considered by
Learned Single Judges of this Court in Pasha International v. Commissioner of Cus-
toms, Tuticorin [2019 (365) E.L.T. 669] and Global Calcium Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commis-
sioner [Order dated 10-6-2019 in W.P. No. 3321 of 2019) [2019 (370) E.L.T. 176
(Mad.)] in favour of the petitioner.
7. I am also of the view that the error in not stating ‘YES’ to availment
of the Scheme, such error, admittedly being inadvertent and Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil
fairly does not dispute this, should not stand in the way of the consideration of
entitlement on merits. As far as entitlement itself is concerned, I have already
observed that the benefit of the Scheme would be available to the petitioner con-
ditional upon verification and acceptance of such claim by the DGFT.
8. In the light of the discussion as above, the impugned order rejecting
the request for amendment is quashed and a mandamus issued to the second re-
spondent to amend the shipping bill as sought for, by the petitioner.
9. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
_______

________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  146