M/S Savlon Sulz Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:3620-Db)
2026 Latest Caselaw 889 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Savlon Sulz Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:3620-Db) on 20 January, 2026

Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13732/2021

M/s Savlon Sulz Pvt. Ltd., G-100 To 102 And F-113 To 115, 4Th
Phase,     Riico   Industrial      Area,       Bhilwara-311001,          Rajasthan.
Through Its Director Shri Radha Kishan Somani S/o Shri Begraj
Somani, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of C-81, Near Shyam
Mandir, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara - 311001.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
         Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-
         110001
2.       Principal Commissioner, Customs 5B, Port User Building,
         Mundra Post, Mundra 370421, Gujrat.
3.       Assistant     Commissioner           /    Deputy          Commissioner   Of
         Customs, 5B, Port User Building, Mundra Post, Mundra
         370421, Gujrat.
4.       Directorate General Of Foreign Trade (Dgft), Udyog
         Bhawan, H-Wing, Gate No. 02, Maulana Azad Road, New
         Delhi 110011
5.       The Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade, 11/a, Govt.
         M.s. Building, Lal Darwaja Ahmedabad-380001, Gujarat.
6.       Joint DGFT, RA Jaipur, 2rd Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak
         Marg, Jaipur-302005


                                                                    ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13027/2021
M/s Skyrise Exports, F-115, 1St Floor, 4Th Phase, Riico Industrial
Area, Bhilwara - 311001, Rajasthan Through Its Proprietor Shri
Radha Kishan Somani S/oshri Begraj Somani, Aged About 63
Years, R/o C-81, Near Shyam Mandir, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara
311001.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
         Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi

                        (Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)
                       (Downloaded on 23/01/2026 at 09:41:36 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB]                   (2 of 11)                         [CW-13732/2021]


         110001
2.       Principal     Commissioner           - Customs, 5             B, Port User
         Building, Mundra Port, Mundra - 370421, Gujarat.
3.       Assistant     Commissioner            /    Deputy          Commissioner    Of
         Customs, 5 B, Port User Building, Mundra Port, Mundra -
         370421, Gujarat.
4.       Directorate General Of Foreign Trade (Dgft), Udyog
         Bhawan, H-Wing, Gate No. 02, Maulana Azad Road, New
         Delhi 110011
5.       The Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade, 11/a, Govt.
         M.s. Building, Lal Darwaja Ahmedabad-380001, Gujarat
                                                                     ----Respondents
                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3048/2022
M/s. Samyak Synthetics Pvt Ltd., Through Its Sh. Gyan Chand
Jain S/o Sh. Bal Chand Jain, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of
36, Kanchipuram, First Gate Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       Union Of India, Through Commerce Secretary, Ministry Of
         Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, Rajpath Area, New Delhi,
         Delhi 110011.
2.       Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs( Cbic),
         Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi 110011.
3.       Directorate General Of Foreign Trade (Dgft), Udyog
         Bhawan, H Wing, Gate No. 2, Maulana Azad Road, New
         Delhi 110011.
4.       Joint   Director        General      Of     Foreign        Trade,   (Regional
         Authority), 3Rd Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
         302005 (Rajasthan).
5.       Principal Commissioner - Customs, 5B, Port User Building,
         Mundra Port, Mundra 370421, Gujarat.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sharad Kothari with
                                   Mr. Kalpit Shishodia
                                   Mr. Chirag Soni
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat with
                                   Mr. Rishabh Dadhich


                         (Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)
                        (Downloaded on 23/01/2026 at 09:41:36 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB]                  (3 of 11)                       [CW-13732/2021]




               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

20/01/2026

1. Vide the instant common judgment/order, the above titled

bunch of writ petitions is being decided together as not only the

facts are similar, but so are the issues and the law points involved

therein. For ease of reference, facts/recitals are being taken from

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3058/2022.

2. Petitioner by way of these writ petitions are before this Court

seeking direction against the respondents to take necessary

actions to confer Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)

credits in favour of the petitioners.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is partnership

firm engaged in the manufacturing and export of textile goods,

having its manufacturing unit at Bhilwara, Rajasthan, and is thus

amenable to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The petitioners

holds a valid Import Export Code (IEC) issued by the Directorate

General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).

3.1 Export activities are governed by the Foreign Trade

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act,

1962. In exercise of powers under Section 5 of the said Act, the

Central Government notified the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-

2020, which is implemented by the DGFT through its Regional

Authorities.

3.2 Pursuant to the FTP 2015-2020, the Merchandise Exports from

India Scheme (MEIS) was introduced under Chapter 3 of the FTP

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (4 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

and the Handbook of Procedures (HBP), providing export

incentives in the form of duty credit scrips on eligible exports.

3.3 The procedure for claiming MEIS benefits is entirely electronic

and operates through the DGFT's Electronic Data Interchange

(EDI) system. At the time of filing shipping bills electronically with

Customs, exporters are required to declare their intent to claim

MEIS benefits by selecting the appropriate option for transmission

of shipping bill data to the DGFT.

3.4 During the financial years 2015-16 and 2016- 17, the

petitioner exported its goods and intended to avail MEIS benefits.

However, in respect of three shipping bills, due to an inadvertent

clerical error, the declaration of intent was not correctly marked,

resulting in non-transmission of the said shipping bills from

Customs to the DGFT

3.5 On account of the aforesaid error, the petitioner was

prevented from filing MEIS claims in respect of the said shipping

bills on the DGFT portal, though the petitioner has otherwise

regularly availed MEIS benefits for its exports.

3.6 The DGFT had previously acknowledged similar technical

issues and, vide Public Notice No. 47/2015- 20 dated 08.12.2015,

directed transmission of shipping bills where declaration of intent

had been inadvertently marked incorrectly.

3.7 The petitioner, through its Customs House Agent and

thereafter by representation dated 24.01.2022, requested the

respondent authorities to rectify the inadvertent error and

transmit the shipping bills to the DGFT. Despite repeated follow-

ups, no action has been taken.

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (5 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

3.8 Left with no efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has

approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the present writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the rival

contentions and perused the case file.

5. Preliminary objections have been taken by the respondents

that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, inter alia, on

account of lack of territorial jurisdiction with this Court and the

same ought to have been filed before the Gujarat High Court. The

preliminary objection is summed up in the reply filed on behalf of

the respondents which reads as under:

"A. At the onset, it is submitted that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It humbly submitted that all the Respondents are not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Also, no cause of action, whole or part, arises in this in the State of Rajasthan therefore, the present Writ Petition is wrongly filed before this Hon'ble Court.

B. That the DGFT is situated in New Delhi and having a regional office shall not give any cause of action for the present Writ Petition to be preferred in the State of Rajasthan. Regional Authority (RA) is not the final authorities for sanctioning of the benefits under MEIS, and even if it is accepted, then also the said would not constitute the cause of action in the State of Rajasthan."

6. While learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously

argue that filing of the application seeking benefit of the

Merchandise Exports for India Scheme before the Custom Officer

of Gujarat is merely a ministerial Act. The Custom Officer lacks

any authority to either add anything or subtract anything or allow

any changes once the application is filed online. He submits that,

inadvertently instead of opting for 'Y' in the appropriate column,

the default entry of 'N' could not be changed while filling up the

online options. Subsequently, the said mistake came to the

knowledge of the petitioner company and immediately a

representation was filed before the Customs Officer which is

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (6 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

contained in Annexure-6. However he submits that the said

representation has been given a short shrift as the Customs

Officer lacks the administrative competence to cure the defect. He

would submit that Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

(CBEC), i.e. located in Delhi, is empowere to cure the aforesaid

defect under Section 149 of the Customs Act. Thereafter,

eventually the entitlement thereof is to be determined by

respondent No.4 i.e. the Regional Authority located in Jaipur.

7. He would submit that even in two of other cases where the

petitioner had opted for 'Y', the Customs Officer at Gujarat

forwarded the same to the Regional Authority at Jaipur for further

needful in accordance with the Scheme.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention

to Clause 1.16 of the Foreign Trade Policy contained in Chapter I

which reads as under:

"1.16 Facility of online filing of applications All the Regional Authorities (RA) of DGFT and extension counters have been networked with high speed internet. The applications are received and processed electronically. DGFT under the EDI initiatives has provided the facility of on line filing of applications to obtain Importer Exporter Code and various authorizations/scrips. DGFT is one of the first digital signature enabled organisation of the Government of India (GOI), which has introduced a higher level of Encrypted 2048 bit digital signature. There is a web interface for online filing application after accessing DGFT website (http://dgft.gov.in). The application can be filed by exporter/CHA sitting at home or office in 24X7 environment. Application fee can also be paid online from linked banks. Efforts are being made to allow payment by debit/credit cards as well. The applications are signed with a digital signature and submitted electronically to the concerned Regional Authority of DGFT, which are then processed on computer by the Regional Authority and authorisations/scrips are issued. Online filing has minimized the physical interface."

9. A perusal of the above clearly leaves no manner of doubt in

the facts that the Custom Officer at Gujarat is merely a forwarding

authority of the application in question. Once it is digitally signed

and uploaded online, it has to be forwarded to the concerned

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (7 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

Regional Authority of the DGFT for taking further appropriate

action on the same.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade

ourselves with the arguments of learned counsel for the

respondents that since the application was to be forwarded by the

Custom Officer to the Regional Authority, the jurisdiction is

exclusively vested at Gujarat. Clearly in order to seek the benefit

of the scheme, the Competent Authority being the Regional

Authority, Jaipur part cause of action, if not all, arises in the State

of Rajasthan.

11. Aside above, the facts narrated in the petition in paragraph 8

& 9 also make out a case in favour of the petitioner to invoke the

jurisdiction of this Court. Paragraph 8 & 9 of the writ petition reads

as under:

"8. That in pursuance of the aforesaid framework, the exporters are required to submit the shipping bills to the Customs authorities and while making this submission electronically, they need to inform the authorities that the bills should be transferred to the DGFT authorities (by) selecting between a "Yes"/ "No" option, to enable the allotment of Duty Credit scrips (by the DGFT department). Earlier, when this process was done through manual filings, corrections could be made (on the exporters end itself, through submission of manual application), in view of the enabling provision in Section 149 of the Customs Act. A copy of the screenshot, denoting the default option as "No" for bill transfer to DGFT authorities is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-3.

9. That it is follows that the procedure for obtaining with the entitlement under MEIS, commences concerned customs authorities dispatching the message on the EDI System, but the ultimate authority for conferring the benefit of the MEIS, vests in DGFT through its regional offices across the country. In the present case, this authority lies with Respondent No. 4- Joint Director General of Foreign Trade at Jaipur in its capacity as the Regional Authority (RA)."

11.1. In response to the aforesaid paragraphs, corresponding reply

given by the respondents is as below:

"8. That the contents of para no. 8 of the Writ Petition require no comments from the Respondents.

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (8 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

9. That the contents of para no. 9 of the Writ Petition are not accepted and it is humbly submitted that Petitioner should file for obtaining MEIS scrip and is not automatically granted. Thus, the action does not lie with DGFT on RA as no application was filed."

12. Clearly there is tacit admission in the reply, as above, on the

part of the respondents. Had the application been filed before the

Customs Officer opting 'Y', in that event, Regional Authority would

have had the further jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Thus,

these writ petitions can be entertained by this Court.

13. Furthermore, it is not even the case of the respondents that

this court is denuded of its territorial jurisdiction qua the

respondent No.4 i.e., the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, who is

Regional Authority being located at Jaipur, which is in Rajasthan.

14. The Regional Authority being the final Competent Authority

to adjudicate on the matter, we see no reason why the instant set

of writ petitions cannot be entertained. Accordingly, it is so ruled

and the preliminary objection is found to be not maintainable and

over ruled.

15. Speaking on merits, learned counsel for the petitioners

would rely on judgments rendered by the different High Courts i.e.

the Madras High Court, Gujarat High Court, Bombay High Court

and Kerala High Court and submits that all of them have been

unison in opining that a benefit, if otherwise a person or entity is

entitled, once the substantive condition stands satisfied, cannot be

denied due to technical errors or any ministerial default and/or

any lacunae caused either by electronic system or human

inadvertence. He would urge that the said opinion is based on the

very substantive provision contained in Section 145 of the

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (9 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

Customs Act which also envisages such like errors caused by the

human interface and thus permits subsequent

amendments/corrections in the application once filed/uploaded

with the Custom Officers.

16. On being confronted with the ratio rendered in the

judgments ibid, learned counsel for the respondents would submit

that as per the principle enunciated therein, there is no dispute

that they hold the field even as on today. None of these

judgments have been challenged in the Supreme Court, he would

respond on a court query.

17. For ready reference one of the judgments rendered by High

Court in Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs

Directorate General of Foreign Trade;1 is quoted herein below:

"19. It is further submitted that the issue in the present writ-application is no longer res integra. Various High Courts including this Hon'ble High Court have already permitted the amendment of shipping bills that have been erroneously ticked as 'No' instead of 'Yes' in the MEIS benefit column. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Mangalnath Cashews, Order dated 4 th March 2020 in W.A. Nos. 97 and 118 of 2020;2020 (3) TMI 1066 was considering a similar issue. The Kerala High Court held as follows:-

"2. Denial of a claim for export benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme(MEIS) envisaged under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20, was under challenge in these writ petitions. The reason for denial of the claim was that, the writ petitioners have omitted to check the Box stating 'Yes', indicating their intention to avail reward under the Scheme, in the specific Box provided in the software intended for uploading details to the web portal of the Central Government. The learned Single Judge found that, the default setting in the software indicate 'No', and it is only due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of the writ petitioners that the box stating 'Yes' was omitted to be checked. But it was noticed that, in the column meant for description of the goods, the writ petitioners had clearly indicated their intention to avail the benefit of MEIS. The learned Single Judge specifically noted that, in the shipping bill produced that the writ petitioners have specifically mentioned that "WE INTEND TO CLAIM REWARD UNDER MEIS'. Therefore it was found that the denial of the claim to avail the benefit could technical lapse on the part of the exporter in not checking a particular box in not have been done in a mechanical manner, merely because there was a web portal; more so when there was sufficient 1 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 3267

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (10 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

indication in other details entered therein about the intention of the exporter to claim the rewards. Therefore the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the appellants as well as the Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the claim of the writ petitioners for export benefit, afresh. in the light of the observations contained in the judgment and to the grant export benefits, if on an overall consideration of the details furnished by the writ petitioners the intention to claim the benefit of the MEIS was seen manifested at the time of export. The claim was directed to be considered afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the writ petitioners. In the meanwhile, the Customs Authorities were directed to issue necessary 'No Objection Certificate in favour of the writ petitioners for processing the claim afresh.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that, since the writ petitioners have not checked the 'Yes' Box in the relevant column, indicating their intention with respect to claiming of the benefit under MEIS, necessary verification of the export consignment was not done at the relevant time; and that verification of the consignment is not possible as of now.

We are not persuaded to accept the said contention. Even if there exists no claim for the benefit under the MEIS, naturally there will be physical verification with respect to the goods consigned by the exporter. Therefore the details of the shipping as well as the necessary verification preceding the export were already done at that time would clearly indicate the identity of the goods exported. If the identity of the goods exported would reveal that the goods exported are those goods with respect to which the benefit under MEIS is allowable, there is no necessity for further physical verification for deciding the question of allowing the claim.

4. Learned counsel further pointed out that, by virtue of a Circular issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, instruction was given to allow such claims in cases where the exporters had omitted to tick 'Yes' in the portal, only for a limited period of six months from the date of introduction of the limitation. As already Scheme. We do not find any logic in putting such found by the learned Single Judge, the intention was explicit from other details uploaded in the portal and also from the documents relating to the shipping. Therefore, the omission seems to have been quite inadvertent.

There is no justification in denying the claim, based on such an inadvertent omission. In the matter of condoning such an omission, there cannot be a discrimination between exporters who made the claim within six months and those who have raised the claim after six months of introduction of the Scheme."

20. The Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Pasha International v. The Commissioner of Customs, Order dated 10th January 2019 in WP (MD) No. 25252 2018 and 22857 of 2018; MANU/TN/1041/2019: 2019 (2) TMI 1187 has also decided the issue similarly.

"21. The issue has also been decided in various other cases namely:

(i) M/s. P.A. Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGFT and Ors., MANU/TN/0678/2020:

2020 (3) TMI 273 - Madras High Court

(ii) M/s. Davinci Leather Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, MANU/ TN/3270/2020: 2020 (2) TMI 1266 - Madras High Court

(iii) M/s Global Calcium Private Limited. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (EDC) and Ors., MANU/TN/9773/2019: 2019 (6) TMI 811 - Madras High Court

(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:3620-DB] (11 of 11) [CW-13732/2021]

(iv) Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, MANU/KE/2232/2018: 2018 (11) TMI 536 - Kerala High Court

(v) Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Vs. NC John and Sons, MANU/KE/3135/2020: 2020 (374) ELT 465 - Kerala High Court

22. The decisions rendered by various High Courts have not been appealed before any higher forum by any of the respondent till date."

18. Aforesaid being the position, we see no reason why the

benefit thereof be not given to the petitioners therein.

19. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed with a direction

to respondent No.4 i.e. DGFT that the petitioners be allowed to

resubmit their online applications to seek benefit of Merchandise

Export of India Scheme by converting their option from N to Y and

the same be thereafter processed by the Competent Authority i.e.

Joint Director of Foreign Trade/Regional Authority at Jaipur in

accordance with law.

20. No order as to costs.

21. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

                                   (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J                                         (ARUN MONGA),J
                                   78-80-Devanshi/-




                                                           (Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:48:37 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)