MEIS Benefit Cannot Be Denied Due to DGFT Portal Glitches | HC

Case Details: Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Union Of India- (2025) 35 Centax 307 (Bom.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
• S/Shri Prakash D. Shah a/w. Mihir Mehta & Mohit Raval i/b. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner.
• Ms Shruti Vyas a/w. S/Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Dr Sampath Kumar, Joint DGFT, Haroon Bilal, Deputy DGFT, Ram Ochani a/w. Ms Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was an exporter whose Customs brokers inadvertently declared that there was no intention to claim benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme by indicating ‘N’ instead of ‘Y’ in the digital REWARD column of the shipping bills. It was submitted that Customs permitted amendment of the shipping bills under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, both manually and electronically, acknowledging the bona fide error. However, DGFT declined to accept manual corrections and advised online submission, which could not be processed due to technical and systemic issues in the DGFT portal, despite several applications and follow-ups by the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Advisory No. 7/2023, issued by the Directorate General of Systems and Data Management under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), requiring departments to take cognisance of shipping bills amended by Customs Authorities for the purpose of scheme benefits. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that benefits under law or government schemes promoting exports could not be denied merely because the DGFT portal or technological systems were unable to process shipping bills duly amended by Customs Authorities. It was held that after issuance of the CBIC advisory, it was incumbent upon DGFT to update and align its electronic systems to recognise such amendments. The Court held that the record reflected lack of coordination between Customs authorities and DGFT, resulting in avoidable hardship to the exporter even after the amendment was permitted by Customs. Accordingly, DGFT was directed to rectify its electronic handling systems within a stipulated period and to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner, and the petition was allowed.

List of Cases Cited

• Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2023 (384) E.L.T. 293 (Bom.) = (2023) 4 Centax 11 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 16, 17, 21, 25, 29]

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

• Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Public Notice No. 30/2023, dated 11-4-2023 [Para 12]
• Directorate General of Systems and Data Management Advisory No. 7/2023, dated 11-4-2023 [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 29]

List of Notifications Cited

• DGFT Notification dated 1-4-2015 [Paras 5, 8]