COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. MANGALATH CASHEWS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 and 2 in the respective writ petitions are challenging a common judgment of the Single Judge, dated 13th November,2019 in W.P.(C) Nos.25339 and 27126 of 2019. The respondent in these appeals are the writ petitioners and other respondents in the writ petitions.

(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 not have been done in a mechanical manner, merely because there was a technical lapse on the part of the exporter in not checking a particular box in the web portal; more so when there was sufficient 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.