DGFT Empowered to Cancel MEIS Scrips Beyond 24 Months

By Centax

September 1, 2025

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Director General of Foreign Trade (2025) 33 Centax 203 (Mad.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
S/Shri Raghavan Ramabadran for M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, for the Petitioner
Dr Babu, SCGPC for S/Shri Rajinish Pathiyal, V. Chandrasekaran, SPC, R. Rajesh Vivekananthan, DSGOI, Ms Sushma, SPC, T. Srikrishna Bhagavat & AR.L. Sundaresan, ASGOI a/b. K.S. Jeyaganeshan, SPC & V.T. Balaji, SPC, for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was engaged in the activity of designing, manufacturing, and selling Commercial Vehicles [trucks and buses] in India for domestic sales, as well as for exporting the said vehicles abroad. The petitioner exported the subject goods, which refer to commercial vehicles consisting of chassis, engine, driver cabin, wheel, fuel tank and obtained MEIS benefits from the year 2015 onwards.The subject goods were classified under ITC(HS) code 87060042 in the shipping bills, and the petitioner had been classifying the subject goods under this code right from the inception of exports from the year 2013. For the export of the said goods, the petitioner claimed MEIS benefits at the rate of 3%.The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, initiated an enquiry into the exports made by the petitioners. He was prima facie of the view that the goods, as declared in the shipping bills are to be classified under ITC(HS) codes 87012090, 87042219 and 87054000 and not under ITC(HS)87060042.

Based on the inputs received from the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, the DGFT, Chennai issued a show cause notice dated 25.08.2023 stating that the petitioners had obtained an excess amount of MEIS benefits by way of misclassification of commercial vehicles consisting of chassis, engine, driver cabin, wheel, fuel tank etc., under CTH 87060042.The petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause notice, and thereafter, they were called for personal hearings. Ultimately the Adjudicating Authority passed the order in original, retrospectively partially cancelling the MEIS scrips issued in excess of 1%. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the writ petition before the Madras High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the cancellation of a license/scrip is not a mere cancellation of a document per se, but it cancels the effectiveness of a decision that was taken by the authority. Therefore, even if the validity period of scrips has come to an end, that does not tie the hands of the authority to recall a decision if such a decision requires reconsideration. The alleged contravention against the petitioners does not pertain to the law relating to customs or foreign exchange or the rules and regulations made thereto. It is a clear case of contravention of a foreign trade policy. It is a clear case of contravention of a foreign trade policy. Therefore, the order passed by the authorities does not satisfy the requirement under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act r/w Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, the order becomes illegal and it has to be necessarily interfered with by the Court.