SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. The petitioner is having import export Code No.0588137235. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of large Diameter Submerged Arc Welded Steel Pipes, which the petitioner is supplying to the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Companies of India as well as to the foreign companies. One of the Schemes being the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (“MEIS”) following under Chapter 3 of such Foreign Trade Policy had given certain benefits and the under the said Scheme, the exporter is entitled 3% incentives on the realized Free On Board (FOB) value of exports.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it had exported from Mundra Sea Port to Chile against the export invoice dated 14.06.2018 Carbon Steel Longit, Welded Line Pipes. This was by filing shipping Bill No. 5561585. The petitioner declared its intent to get the benefits under the MEIS. It is the say of the petitioner that it filed shipping bill online through EDI System of the Customs. While filing the same, it had shown the invoice value $55,25,161.78 Ps., but while filing the bifurcation of the invoice value in the shipping bill what was mentioned was $55,25,161.78 in the commission column as against the actual commission value of $54,706.82. This being the procedural defect, according to the petitioner, it is curable. Basic objective of the export is to provide the reward to the exporter.

3. The petitioner declared correct export value in shipping bill, however, while mentioning the same by commission agent this mistake had occurred.

4. The petitioner had approached the Officer vide letter dated 02.07.2018 for amending shipping bill as provided under Section 149 of the Customs Act well within the stipulated time period of 30 days. The proper officer also passed an order on 02.07.2018 noticing the genuine error and allowed the same.

5. Before the shipping bill could be amended, it was assessed by the proper officer under Section 17 and the goods were exported. The amendment could not be reflected in EDI System due to the technical reasons and hence, respondent No.4 was approached the Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) on 18.10.2018 was requested to entertain the MEIS Scheme manually against the petitioner shipping Bill No.5561585. The statement of bank realization has also been uploaded by the bank indicative of the fact that the petitioner realized the value of goods exported as per the export invoice.

6. PRC meeting dated 30.10.2018 as had also been communicated to the petitioner, decided to ask the EDI to make suitable provisions to grant the petitioner MEIS benefits against said shipping bill. It was decided to refer the minutes of the meeting to the EDI decision on 16.04.2019 for implementation of the decision. As the claim through the EDI system, was not feasible to be considered then request was made to for manual consideration. The PRC rejected the case of the petitioner.

7. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs was approached aggrieved by the fact that his case is genuine and because of the EDI system, manual presentation is not being permitted, the petitioner before this Court is with following prayers:

“7.

(a) This Honourable Court be pleased to allow this petition.

(b) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant the benefit of MEIS considering the amended shipping bill manually for want of online system for filing amended shipping bill without imposing the Late Cut Charges as the claim is raised by the Petitioner within period of limitation.

(c) Pending the admission and final disposal of the petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to extend the time for grant of MEIS benefit under the Foreign Trade Policy, which is likely to expire on 13th June, 2021.”

8. We have noticed the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4 has also come on record, where the respondent does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner, however, according to the respondent, there is a prescribed procedure under the MEIS Scheme and these procedures are outlined in the Hand Book of Procedure 2015-20, which are essentially component of the Foreign Trade Policy. The same has been extended till 31.12.2021 and it would therefore be necessary that the entitlement under MEIS Scheme shall need to be offered once these procedure are followed.

9. In the case of the present petitioner, the Committee found problems faced by the firm beyond the control and decided to ask the EDI to make suitable changes to grant the MEIS benefits against shipping bill No.5561585 dated 14.06.2018 manually.

10. The Committee decided to refer the matter to the EDI Division for implementation of the decision taken on 30.10.2018, however, eventually the same could not happen for want of availability of mechanism permitting the manual amendment of the shipping bill. It is also the say of the respondent that any action on amendment of shipping bill can only be taken by the Customs Authorities, i.e. the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are custodian of the shipping bill based on Extant Rule of amendment of shipping bill as per the relevant Extant Procedure.

11. The rejoinder has already been filed by the petitioner.

12. We have heard at length learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainavati appearing with learned advocate Mr. Harshadray Dave for the petitioner, who has urged that the manual amendment will serve the purpose but for the technical procedural hitch since on substantive part, there is hardly any dispute between the parties.

13. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval appearing for the respondent has urged that he does not dispute the Committee having decided on the entitlement of the petitioner the benefits, however according to him, this is Hand Book of Procedure which will govern the procedure, which would not permit the manual correction of the shipping bill and that is the hitch which has been conveyed to the petitioner. The Authority on its part has already made an attempt to refer it to do to the EDI System, which again was finding technical hitch in so doing it along with procedural limitation.

14. Having heard both the sides and also on a carefully considering the chronology of events, we notice that it is a genuine mistake on the part of the petitioner which has led the petitioner approaching this Court for prayer of permitting the bill manually. We notice that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had permitted the manual amendment of shipping bill in question being the shipping bill bearing No.5561585 dated 14.06.2018 while filing shipping bill online in EDI system of the customs inadvertently systems had got been corrected value of goods exported as has been noted by the PRC Committee in its meeting. A representation made had weighed with the said Committee. The Customs, Mundra had assessed and finalized the consignment, however, the amendment since had not been reflected in EDI systems of the DGFT, that resulted in preventing filing the MEIS claim. Hence, the Committee in its report dated 30.10.2018 had referred the matter to EDI / NISD for DGFT to make suitable provisions to grant MEIS benefits against the same shipping manually. The Committee had also reviewed on 24.09.2019 on the basis of the comments received from E-Governance and Trade Facilitation (EGTF) section and observed that the reflection of such manual amendment in the automated system is not feasible, hence, request of the firm has been rejected. The issue is more of procedural in nature than of substantive kind as the software has the limitation and it does not permit even after the manual correction of the shipping bill, the benefit to flow of MEIS Scheme as it does not recognize said manual correction, the petitioner is deprived of the benefits.

15. This Court in the case of Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGFT reported in 2021(377) ELT 489 (Guj.) was considering the similar issue to hold thus:

“The writ applicant submits that as per its understanding, the EDI system, which is an electronic system developed and managed by the respondent no.3 with an objective to digitalize transmission of shipping bills between Respondents, suffers from lacunae that it does not permit amendment, which is specifically permitted in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1961, to be carried electronically through EDI system. It is a settled law that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to a technical error or lacunae in the electronic system.”

16. No technicality can mar the right of the parties which otherwise accrued under the substantive law. Here when genuineness of the export and entitlement of petitioner otherwise is not in any manner disputed, this technical glitch shall in no manner hamper the request of the petitioner of getting benefit.

17. Resultantly, the petition is allowed without imposing the latecut charges the benefits of MEIS shall be allowed as per the manually amended shipping bill No. 5561585 dated 14.06.2018.