Page 127 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ]P.A. FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, NEW DELHI661

fourth respondents with regard to genuineness of the 44 Shipping Bills
submitted by petitioner - Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 7, 9]
Petition disposed of
CASES CITED
Pasha International v. Commissioner — 2019 (365) E.L.T. 669 (Mad.) — Relied on ................. [Paras 6, 7]
Global Calcium Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner
— 2019 (370) E.L.T. 176 (Mad.) — Relied on .......................................................................... [Paras 6, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri R. Mansoor Ilahi for S. Murugappan, for the
Petitioner.
Shri T.V. Krishnamachari, Senior Panel Counsel and
Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Standing Counsel, for
the Respondent.
[Order]. - This writ petition has been filed challenging the decision taken
by the sixth respondent against the petitioner in their meeting dated 31-5-2017
and quashing the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant Mer-
chandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefit to the petitioner herein in
respect of 44 shipping bills covered by the files (i) 04/21/090/00733/AM16, (ii)
04/21/090/00747/AM16 and (iii) 04/21/090/80074/AM17 of the fifth respond-
ent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the goods exported by the petition-
er are eligible for benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme which
has been notified under the Foreign Trade Policy. It is their case that at the time
of filing of their 44 shipping bills covered by the files (i) 04/21/090/00733/
AM16, (ii) 04/21/090/00747/AM16 and (iii) 04/21/090/80074/AM17, the peti-
tioner had inadvertently omitted to select ‘Yes’ in the online platform and omit-
ted to mention/declare in the shipping bills that they intend to claim benefit un-
der the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme. According to the petitioner,
they filed an application dated 20-3-2017 before the sixth respondent seeking to
amend the 44 shipping bills filed by the petitioner so as to claim incentive under
the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme stating that only due to inadvert-
ence, they have omitted to select ‘yes’ which will enable them to claim benefit
under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme. The said application of the
petitioner was considered by the sixth respondent in their meeting held on 31-5-
2017 and they have rejected the same on the ground that the applicant has nei-
ther marked ‘yes’ in the reward item box nor declared intent for claiming re-
wards and no cogent reasons have been given by him for omitting to mention
‘Yes’ in the online platform. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been
filed.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first, fifth and sixth re-
spondents reiterating the contents of the scheme of Merchandise Exports from
India Scheme (MEIS) and also reiterating the contents of the rejection order
passed by the sixth respondent in its meeting held on 31-5-2017.
4. Heard Mr. R. Mansoor llahi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. T.V. Krishnamachari, Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents 1, 5
& 6 and Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan, Learned Standing Counsel for the respond-
ents 2 to 4.
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in an identical
matter, a Learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition on the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  127