Delhi High Court
M/S Super Circle Auto Ltd. vs Government Of India, Delhi And Ors. on 29 October, 2024
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
+ W.P.(C) 7015/2019
M/S SUPER CIRCLE AUTO LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.S. Nagi and Mr. Lokesh
Kumar, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DELHI AND ORS......Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr.
Jatin Teotia and Mr. Samarth
Talesara, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. The present Petition has been filed seeking directions for quashing the
decisions dated 30.10.2018 and 12.03.2019 of the Policy Relaxation
Committee (PRC) of Respondent No.2 where the committee has rejected the
claim of the Petitioner for release of the reward amounts admissible under
the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) of Foreign Trade
Policy 2015-20 [hereinafter referred to as the "MEIS"] under 28 shipping
bills of the Petitioner.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a
manufacturer of Asbestos Free brake-lining (CTH 6813 81 00) and Brake
pads & brake shoes (CTH 8708 30 00) and exported these items to various
countries which have been informed in Table 1 of Appendix 3B of the MEIS
as notified by Respondent No.2 including to Denmark, UAE, Russia, Egypt,
Kenya, Canada, Madagascar, U.S.A., Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Netherlands.
The list of 28 shipping bills is annexed along with the present Petition.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that in 28 shipping bills generated by
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), due to a technical difficulty, they
inadvertently marked 'N' in the "reward item box" instead of 'Y' in the
Reward. Consequently, these 28 shipping bills were not transmitted from
customs to Respondent No.2 server for grant of rewards.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the error was an error
of inadvertence on the part of the Petitioner. He further submits that a
representation was filed before the PRC, however, the Committee found that
there was no merit in the case and thus rejected the plea of the Petitioner.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that this issue is no
longer res integra. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Customs v. N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 1 has dealt with a
similar situation by allowing the shipping bills to be processed.
4.2 It is contended that a similar view has been taken by the Madras High
Court and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the following cases:
(i) Paramount Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy D.G.F.T., Directorate
General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi2; and K.I. International Ltd. v.
Commr. Of Cus. (Appeal-II), Chennai3; and
(ii) Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. Mangalath Cashews4;
5. Notice in this Petition was issued 03.07.2019 and a Counter-Affidavit
was filed opposing the Petition.
6. It was contended by the Respondents that in view of the fact that the
2022 (380) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)
2022 (381) E.L.T. 375 (Mad.)
2021 (378) E.L.T. 285 (Mad.)
2020 (373) E.L.T. 149 (Ker.)
entitlement of a reward under the MEIS is only allowed when the procedure
is followed by the exporter and since the shipping bills were not correctly
marked, the authority examined the bills and rejected the MEIS reward.
7. Both parties have been briefly heard in the matter.
8. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite being eligible, it is not
getting benefit under the MEIS in the sum of Rs. 15,17,526.42/-. It is the
admitted case of the parties that in view of the inadvertent error, the
shipping bills have not been processed.
8.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondents has opposed the grant of this
MEIS reward.
9. The Supreme Court in N.C. John case has set out that where there
was an inadvertent mistake of mentioning 'N' instead of 'Y' in the Column
and the claimant had shown the intent to claim the MEIS benefit, which was
granted by the High Court, in such a situation the Court sees no reason to
interdict with the grant of such reward under the MEIS to the claimant. The
relevant extract of the order is extracted below:
"In the facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly,
when right from the very beginning the respondent had declared the
intention to claim the rewards under the MEIS (Merchandise
Export from India Scheme) and it was found that there was an
inadvertent mistake in checking the column 'N' instead of 'Y', we
see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court.
2. As such, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court.
[Emphasis supplied]
9.1 A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Kerala
High Court in Commissioner of Customs Cochin case.
10. Undisputably the only reason for denying the MEIS benefits to the
Petitioner is the fact that the Petitioner had inadvertently marked 'N' instead
of 'Y' in a declaration that it intends to claim rewards under the MEIS in
view of an inadvertent lapse on its part. The Petitioner while filling the
aforesaid 28 Shipping Bills in the EDI system had declared their intention in
the affirmative by stating "we intend to claim rewards under Merchandise
Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)". Thus, the intention of the Petitioner
was from the very beginning to make such a claim. Applying the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the N.C. John case, the Petitioner is entitled to the
rewards.
11. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to
release the reward amounts due to the Petitioner in respect of the 28
shipping bills, the details of which are annexed as Annexure P-4 to the
present Petition within a period of six weeks from today.
12. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
OCTOBER 29, 2024/r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
