AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr.S.R.Sundar, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up
for final disposal.
The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to amend the shipping bills filed by the petitioner pursuant to their application dated
13.4.2017.
In the said application dated 13.4.2017, the petitioner stated that they are regular exporters of coco peat through the port of Chennai, that their
shipping bills are filed under the claim for drawback and that the goods exported are also eligible for the benefits under the Merchandise Exports
from India Scheme (MEIS), notified under the Foreign Trade Policy 2015- 2020. The petitioner further stated that at the time of filing the shipping
bills, they inadvertently omitted to select ''YES'' in the on line platform so as to claim the benefit of the scheme. Therefore, the petitioner sent the
application dated 13.4.2017 seeking permission to amend the shipping bills in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in the case of Madura
Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Turicorin [reported in (2009) 248 ELT 431] and the decision of this Court in the case of Ford
India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [reported in (2011) 272 ELT 353] wherein it has been held that export
incentive schemes should be liberally construed and that the benefit of the schemes should not be denied on technicalities. Therefore, the petitioner
states that the inadvertent error occurred on account of not selecting the proper option in the on line platform should not lead to denial of the
benefit under the relevant Notifications.
The said application dated 13.4.2017 was initially filed before the second respondent, who, in turn, appeared to have forwarded the same to the
Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EDC), Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai IV, who, by reply dated 15.9.2017, informed the
petitioner that as the petitioner sought for clearance of the goods through ICD CONCOR (INTVT6), the petitioner was requested to approach
Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner, [ICD CONCOR (INTVT6)], for any amendment or for a no objection certificate. In respect of
identical issue where the no objection certificate was granted to the petitioner in F.No.5.Misc/31/2017-EDC-NOC, the Deputy Commissioner of
Customs (EDC) stated that in respect of those seven shipping bills, the clearance was through INMAA1.
Thus, in effect, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EDC) informed the petitioner that she is not the proper officer to consider the request
and that the petitioner has to approach ICD CONCOR (INTVT6). Immediately thereafter, the petitioner sent a representation dated 09.11.2017
to the first respondent reiterating the stand taken in their earlier application dated 13.4.2017. Since the said representation is pending from
November 2017 before the first respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation dated 09.11.2017 was sent to the first respondent by registered
post and that it would have reached the office of the first respondent within two or three days of dispatch.
The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that reasonable time may be granted to the first respondent to
consider the representation dated 09.11.2017.
In the light of the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the
petitioner dated 09.11.2017 requesting for issuance of a no objection certificate for amending ''MEIS Reward Detail - No to MIES Reward Detail
- Yes'' and such a consideration shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that
an opportunity of personal hearing may be granted to the authorized representative of the petitioner before a decision is taken on the petitioner''s
representation. No costs.