Kerala High Court
The Commissioner Of Customs vs Mangalath Cashews on 4 March, 2020
Author: T.V. Anilkumar
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim, T.V.Anilkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.97 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2019 IN WP(C) NO.27126/2019(M) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.
2 THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND
CUSTOMS
RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5:
1 MANGALATH CASHEWS,
CHERIKONNAM, KOLLAM-691001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR.SAJI S.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE, G-FLOOR,
GOKULAM-KLDB, BEHIND MILMA, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695004.
3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
5TH FLOOR, A-1 BLOCK, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682037.
4 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
H WING, GATE NO.2, UDYOG BHAVAN, MOULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW
DELHI-110011.
R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020, ALONG
WITH WA.118/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.97&118/2020
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.118 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2019 IN WP(C) NO.25339/2019(N) OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009
2 THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
CUSTOM HOUSE,WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN-682 009.
BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE
AND CUSTOMS
RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5:
1 ANU CASHEW,
PARAMESHWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-691001 REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNER, MR.ANU PILLAI
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADER
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE, G-FLOOR,
GOKULAM-KLDB, BEHIND MILMA, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-695004
3 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, 5TH FLOOR A-1 BLOCK,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682037
4 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
(ADDL.R5) H WING, GATE NO.2, UDYOG BHAVAN, MOULANA AZAD
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA
R3-R4 BY ADV. SMT.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., CGC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2020,
ALONG WITH WA.NO.97/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.97&118/2020
-:3:-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
T.V. ANILKUMAR ,JJ.
==================
W.A. Nos.97 & 118 of 2020
------------------- --------------------
Dated this the 4th day of March,2020
JUDGMENT
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
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 & 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 W.A.Nos.97&118/2020 -:4:- 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 W.A.Nos.97&118/2020 -:5:- 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 W.A.Nos.97&118/2020 -:6:- 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 Scheme. We do not find any logic in putting such a limitation. As already 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.
Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not W.A.Nos.97&118/2020 -:7:- think that there exists any illegality, error or impropriety committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitions. Consequently, the above writ appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE Sd/-
T.V. ANILKUMAR,JUDGE
DST //True copy//
PA.To Judge