Bombay High Court
M/S. Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. ... vs Union Of India, Ministry Of ... on 2 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1
wp4095.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4095/2019
M/s Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur
..Vs..
Union of India and others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Shri S.S. Dewani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, A.S.G.I. for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED :- 2.8.2021.
Heard Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Aurangabadkar, learned A.S.G.I. for
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the
company, since last 100 years has been engaged in export
of rice, oil seeds, food-grains, cornstarch and pulses and
in the present case, when it was export of cornstarch, it
had expressed its intention to avail of the benefit of
reward under Merchandise Export from India Scheme
(for short "MEI Scheme") under the foreign trade policy.
3. As per the provisions of this MEI Scheme, such
expression of intent has to be shown by the exporter by
ticking "Y" from out of two options in the nature of
"Y/N". It is also the condition that consistently the
company has been exercising its option by ticking "Yes"
(ticking "Y" for Yes) showing its intention to avail of the
benefit of the scheme. However, as submitted by the
wp4095.2019.odt
company this time, when the shipping bills were
submitted, during the period from July 2017 and October
2017, the Customs Broker while filing these shipping bills
exercised the option "No" by ticking "N" due to oversight
but later on such mistake was permitted to be rectified by
the respondents when the respondents allowed the
request of the petitioner to submit amended shipping
bills, as submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. However, now, the case of the petitioner is
that the respondents have erroneously and illegally
refused to grant benefit of the scheme to the petitioner.
4. Reliance has been placed on the observations of
the Apex Court in the case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil
V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in
2020(2) HLT 367 wherein the Apex Court held that even
when there are disputed questions of facts which fall for
consideration but when such disputed questions of facts
do not require any elaborate evidence to be adduced, the
High Court is not precluded from entertaining a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the present case, we are of the considered view
that from the view point of the petitioner there are no
facts which would require any proof, by adducing any
evidence. The case of the petitioner, plain and simple, is
that while submitting the shipping bills for the period
from July 2017 to October 2017, the Customs Broker, due
to oversight, chose the option "No" instead of option
"Yes" as regards the claim of reward of the aforestated
wp4095.2019.odt
M.E.I. Scheme. This could be seen from a
communication dated 13.3.2018 made to the
respondents by the petitioner, a copy of which is available
on record at page 27.
6. The communication dated 13.3.2018 would clearly
show that it is an admitted fact that while submitting the
shipping bills in question mistakenly "No" was chosen not
by the petitioner but by its Customs Broker. If such a
mistake has been committed, about which there is no
dispute, the remedy for the redressal of grievance of the
petitioner would be against the Customs Broker who has
committed the mistake and not against the government
which would not be responsible for making any mistake
or mistakenly reading the options indicated by the
petitioner in the shipping bills. When admittedly there is
a mistake committed by its own Customs Broker, the
petitioner would have to make the Customs Broker to pay
for his mistake and not the government which has not
played any role in the matter. Thus, the petitioner is not
entirely remediless and the petitioner can appropriately
proceed against the Customs Broker, if it desires.
7. Such being the facts of the present case, no
assistance can be sought from the judgment in the case of
Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil (supra). In the result, we find
no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
