Emphasizing that beneficial schemes like the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) must be interpreted liberally and that systemic or technical barriers cannot override statutory entitlements, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court had erred in directing the appellant-exporter to pursue action against the broker when the entitlement arose from a statutory scheme.
The Apex Court therefore directed the authorities to process the MEIS claim based on the amended shipping bills, while highlighting that repeated litigation on similar facts, despite prior rulings, reflects a need for systemic correction and urges the Union of India to implement technological and procedural reforms.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N V Anjaria also observed that once the shipping bills are corrected under Section 149 of the Customs Act, such procedural errors cannot defeat substantive benefits under the MEIS, and the rejection of those benefits by the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) without reasons and without hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Briefly, in the case, the Appellant company, engaged in the export of corn starch, had filed 54 shipping bills during July to October 2017, claiming benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) in Appendix 3B of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015–20. However, due to a clerical error by the customs broker, the declaration of intent to claim MEIS was not marked “Yes” on the shipping bills, thereby preventing their transmission to the DGFT system. Upon discovery, the appellant sought rectification under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, but the DGFT system still refused to process the claim, citing a lack of manual override. A request to the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) was also rejected without reasons or a hearing.
The petition before the High Court was also dismissed, observing that the error was attributable to the customs broker and suggesting that the appellant pursue remedies against them. In vain, the appellant ultimately approached the Apex Court, where they got the relief they sought in their appeal.
Cases Relied On:
Portescap India Private Limited v. Union of India – (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 285
Technocraft Industries (India) Limited v. Union of India – (2023) SCC OnLine Bom 280
Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Union of India – (2024) SCC OnLine Bom 3565
Appearances:
AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, along with Advocates Gagan Sanghi & Farah Hashmi, for the Appellant
AORs Raj Bahadur Yadav, Gurmeet Singh Makker & Rohit Khare, ASG S. Dwarakanath, along with Advocates Digvijay Dam, Navanjay Mahapatra, Ishaan Sharma, Raghav Sharma, Rajat Vaishnaw, and Abhyudey Kabra, for the Respondent
