ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta for the respondent nos. 1,4 and 5. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandarnus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 2 or his officers to grant benefit under MEIS scheme and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Respondent No. 3. (Exhibit-1). (b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 4 or his officers including Respondent No.5 to amend the Shipping Bills manually and allow the Petitioners to claim benefit under the said MEIS scheme. (c) that this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to allow modification in the online system to enable the Petitioners to correct the technical error by allowing selection table "Yes" for shipping bill to be under reward scheme and process the application to grant export incentives under MEIS to the Petitioner or alternatively direct Respondent No. 4 and 5 to recall and amend the 91 Shipping Bills granting the MEIS benefit. (d) that this Hon'ble Court may allow prayer (a), (b) and (c) and direct the Respondents to grant the benefits due to them under MEIS scheme as prayed for in Ground F supra, as consequential relief...;” 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is having its plant at Plot No.SM 9/2, GIDC Estate, Sanand-II, Village Bol, Sanand, Ahmedabad and is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is also registered with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and is holding Importer-Exporter Code No.0812016939. 4. In the regular course of business, the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and exporting of Alluminium Cans falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for various industrial use by the customers. 5. The petitioner is also registered with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and is holding Importer-Exporter Code No.0812016939. 4. In the regular course of business, the petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and exporting of Alluminium Cans falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for various industrial use by the customers. 5. Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 provides for export incentives under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) to the exporters who are engaged in exports of notified goods/products to notified markets as listed in Appendix 3B. 6. The procedure required to be followed by an exporter for availing the benefit under MEIS is provided under Chapter 3 of the Handbook of Procedures, amongst which one of the requirement is declaration of intent on shipping bills for claiming rewards under MEIS. In case of EDI shipping bills, intent to avail benefits under MEIS is to be declared by selecting ‘Y’ (for Yes) in the reward column whereas in the case of non-EDI shipping bills, the declaration ”We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports From India Scheme” is to be made in shipping bills. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been claiming MEIS benefit by making categorical declaration that We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports From India Scheme” and the same is being granted to them time to time. 8. However, during the period from May 2017 to March, 2018, the petitioner filed multiple shipping bills for export of cans and for many of them due to unforeseen reason, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of MEIS. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid EDI shipping bills filed for export of goods, due to oversight of petitioner’s Customs House Agent (CHA), shipping bill was further processed with default option ‘NO’ without selection ‘Yes’ for making exports under reward scheme i.e. MEIS as a result of which exports are not considered for export incentive benefit which otherwise the petitioners are entitled for the same. 10. On realising this technical error, the petitioners first approached respondent no.3 - Policy Relaxation Committee vide letter dated 11.03.2019 and filed an application to seek policy/procedure relaxation in terms of para no. 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy to rectify the reward column from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’. 11. 10. On realising this technical error, the petitioners first approached respondent no.3 - Policy Relaxation Committee vide letter dated 11.03.2019 and filed an application to seek policy/procedure relaxation in terms of para no. 2.58 of the Foreign Trade Policy to rectify the reward column from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’. 11. Respondent no.3 vide email dated 29.03.2019 asked the petitioners to remain personally present on 2.04.2019 on which day, the petitioner appeared before respondent no.3 and made submissions. However, petitioner’s claim was negated. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that on inquiry, it was informed that the claim was rejected because shipping bills indicating ‘NO’ were not amended to ‘YES’. The petitioner therefore, vide letter dated 24.05.2019 made a request to respondent no.4 for amending the Shipping Bills under section 149 of the Customs Act, 19672 to correct the inadvertent mistake of marking ‘N’ instead of ‘Y’. 13. However respondent no.4 vide letter dated 12.06.2019 refused to grant any permission to make such amendment relying on the Public Notice No.40/2015-20 dated 09.10.2015 and Public Notice no.47/2015-20 dated 08.12.2015. 14. Aggrieved by letter dated 12.06.2019, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Customs, Ahmedabad who vide order dated 06.02.2020 remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the request afresh as no speaking order has been passed. 15. The said order dated 06.02.2020 was challenged by the department before the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (CESTAT) contending that the amendment in the shipping bills could not be entertained as the same is not according to the Public Notice No.47/2015-2020 dated 08.02.2015. The petitioner also filed objection to the appeal. 16. CESTAT, Ahmedabad vide Final Order dated 18.03.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the department. 17. Respondent no.5 issued a letter dated 11.08.2022 to the petitioner informing that respondent no.4 has approved the amendment of shipping bills, however, it was informed that the system does not allow/permit any online amendment in shipping bills after completion of export and filing of Export General Manifest(EGM). 18. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.09.2022 requested respondent no.3 to permit manual application for availing MEIS benefit relying on the decision of this Court in case of M/s Jindal Saw Ltd. (judgment dated 17.12.2021 in Special Civil Application No.7861/2021) wherein manual amendment of shipping bills were allowed and MEIS benefit was granted. 19. 18. The petitioner vide letter dated 12.09.2022 requested respondent no.3 to permit manual application for availing MEIS benefit relying on the decision of this Court in case of M/s Jindal Saw Ltd. (judgment dated 17.12.2021 in Special Civil Application No.7861/2021) wherein manual amendment of shipping bills were allowed and MEIS benefit was granted. 19. The petitioners therefore, made an application before respondent no.3 in Form ANF-2D on 13.09.2022 providing all the requisite details. 20. Personal hearing was granted on 11.01.2023 with respect to such application which was duly attended by the authorized representatives of the petitioners and reiterated their submissions. 21. Vide email dated 17.01.2023 the petitioner was informed that in meeting No.28/AM23 the Committee observed that the conversion from ‘N’ to ‘Y’ is not feasible in the current automated system and transmission is not possible and therefore, there being no merit, it was decided to maintain the rejection of earlier decision of PRC in its meeting dated 02.04.2019. The decision of PRC was communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Directorate General, Policy Relaxation Committee respondent no.3 vide email dated 17.01.2023. 22. Aggrieved by the decision of respondent no.3, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 23. Learned advocate Mr.Anand Nainawati for the petitioner submitted that when actual physical export is not in dispute, the petitioners are entitled for MEIS benefit. 24. Referring to para 3.04 of the Foreign Trade Policy it was submitted that the petitioners have satisfied all the conditions of the MEIS Scheme. 25. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati referred to the items listed in Appendix- 3B of Foreign Trade Policy which are entitled for MEIS benefits to submit that the goods exported by the petitioners are covered within Appendix-3B and that they have earned the foreign exchange in respect of those exports. 26. It was further submitted that as per para 3.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy, whereever the rewards under MEIS is available to all countries, proof of landing is not required to be submitted. 27. It was submitted that the export made by the petitioners are not barred from rewards of MEIS Scheme as it does not fall within the categories/sectors enumerated in para 3.06 of the FTP as under: a) Supplies made from DTA units to SEZ units. b) Export of imported goods covered under paragraph 2.46 of FTP. 27. It was submitted that the export made by the petitioners are not barred from rewards of MEIS Scheme as it does not fall within the categories/sectors enumerated in para 3.06 of the FTP as under: a) Supplies made from DTA units to SEZ units. b) Export of imported goods covered under paragraph 2.46 of FTP. c) Exports through trans-shipment, meaning thereby exports that are originating in third country but trans-shipped through India. d) Deemed Exports. e) SEZ/ EOU /EHTP/ BTP /FTWZ products exported through DTA units. f) Export products which are subject to Minimum export price or export duty. g) Exports made by units in FTWZ. 28. It was submitted that para 3.14 of the Handbook of Procedures provides for ‘Declaration of Intent” on EDI and Non-EDI shipping bills and accordingly, EDI shipping bill exporter should mark ‘Y’ to express his intent for claiming benefit of MEIS scheme and for non-EDI shipping bills they should mention “we intend to claim rewards under MEIS”. It was submitted that in the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioners have satisfied the substantive conditions for the entitlement of the benefit of the MEIS Scheme, however, the only dispute pertains to non declaration of the intention to avail the benefit under Chapter 3 on the shipping bills covering the export consignment whereas the intention to avail reward scheme benefit is manifestly declared in other export documents. It was therefore, submitted that procedure of declaration of intent is only a procedural requirement and non-declaration at best may be said to be a procedural lapse. 29. Reliance was placed on decision of this Court in case of M/s. Gokul Overseas v. Union of India reported in (2020) 3 TMI 167, to contend that omission to file ‘declaration of intent’ when all other relevant material is available, is not fatal to the case of the assessee. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati submitted that the above referred decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the respondent should grant benefit under MEIS to the petitioner in respect of shipping bills for export in question. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati submitted that the above referred decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the respondent should grant benefit under MEIS to the petitioner in respect of shipping bills for export in question. It was submitted that similar view was taken by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Pasha International v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorn reported in (2019) 365 ELT 669 (Mad.) as well as Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Anu Cashews v. Commissioner of Customs and Ors. reported in 2019-TIOL-2809-HC-KER-CUS. 30. It was further submitted that without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person, the reward of MEIS cannot be denied on a mere technical error by the CHA for not changing default option of ‘NO’ to ‘YES’. 31. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati referring to section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 which empowers the proper officer of the customs to amend the documents after the goods are exported on the basis of the documentary evidence on record, submitted that when amendment to shipping bill after export of the goods is sought, the same is governed by the proviso to section 149 and if the requirements of the proviso of section 149 are satisfied, the amendment has to be allowed. 32. It was further submitted that as per section 149 of the Customs Act, based on the export documents like ARE-1 and shipping bills, at the time of export, amendment to the shipping bills can be allowed and accordingly the amendment in the shipping bills have been allowed by respondent no.5, however physically copy of the amended shipping bills were not provided and MEIS benefit was not granted till date. It was therefore, submitted that rejection of MEIS benefit on the ground of procedural lapse is not tenable in eye of law and therefore the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 33. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati referred to para 2.58 of the FTP 2015-2020 which provides for exemption from policy/procedures and submitted that DGFT may in consultation with Policy Relaxation Committee, relax the provisions of policy or procedure on grounds of genuine hardships and adverse impact on trade. 33. Learned advocate Mr. Nainawati referred to para 2.58 of the FTP 2015-2020 which provides for exemption from policy/procedures and submitted that DGFT may in consultation with Policy Relaxation Committee, relax the provisions of policy or procedure on grounds of genuine hardships and adverse impact on trade. It was further submitted that DGFT had in the past relaxed similar conditions vide Public Notice No. 40 dated 09.10.2015 and Public Notice No.47 dated 08.12.2015 to give benefit to various exporters which were denied the export incentive claims for the reason that exporters had inadvertently ticked ‘N’(for No) instead of ‘Y’(for Yes) in “Reward” column of shipping bills while filing the EDI Shipping bills. 34. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent no.3 is untenable in law inasmuch as the same is a non-speaking order and is contrary to the objective of MEIS. 35. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta for the respondent submitted that reward in the form of duty credit is issued by the DGFT for export of notified goods to notified markets/countries under the MEIS of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 and MEIS is awarded in the form of scrip, which can be generated online and used online. It was submitted that Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) vide Circular No.14/2015- Cus dated 20.04.2015 clarified that para 3.14 of the Handbook of Procedure relating to declaration of intent for reward on goods, requires the exporter to mandatorily declare the intent for rewards on shipping bills, for shipping bills filed from 01.06.2015 onwards. 36. It was further submitted that Indian Customs EDI System (ICES) did not allow manual intervention into the details of shipping bills, after filing of Export General Manifest(EGM). 37. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta submitted that request of the petitioner for amendment in shipping bills was rejected and it was informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.06.2019 and on appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid communication, the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) vide order in appeal dated 06.02.2020 remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the request afresh as no speaking order had been passed. The Customs department challenged the order in appeal dated 06.02.2020 before CESTAT who vide order dated 18.03.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the department. The Customs department challenged the order in appeal dated 06.02.2020 before CESTAT who vide order dated 18.03.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the department. It was submitted that in compliance of the order of CESTAT, request of the petitioner for amendment from ‘NO’ to ‘YES’ in MEIS was approved and same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 11.08.2022, however, it was also informed to the petitioner that the system does not allow/permit any online amendment in shipping bills after completion of export and filing of EGM. 38. It was further submitted that in September, 2023, the Directorate General of Systems and Data Management, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India enabled the functionality in ICES for MEIS amendment post filing of EGM and accordingly, the Customs department amended the shipping bills of the petitioner and has already electronically transmitted the data in respect of the shipping bills of the petitioner to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. 39. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is eligible for the export benefit under the MEIS in law and as per the notification of the scheme. 40. Chapter 3 to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 provides for export incentives under MEIS to the exporters who are engaged in exports of notified goods/products to notified markets as listed in Appendix 3B. Further, the procedure required to be followed by an exporter for availing the benefit under MEIS is provided under Chapter 3 of the Handbook of Procedures and amongst other requirements, one requirement is declaration of intent on shipping bills for claiming rewards under MEIS. Paragraph no. 3.14 of the Handbook of Procedure reads as under: “3.14 Procedure for Declaration of Intent on EDI and Non EDI shipping bills for claiming rewards under ME/S including export of goods through courier or foreign post offices using eCommerce (i) EDI Shipping Bills: Marking/ticking of "Y' (for Yes) in "Reward" column of shipping bills against each item, which is mandatory, would be sufficient to declare intent to claim rewards under the scheme. In case the exporter does not intend to claim the benefit of reward under Chapter 3 of FTP exporter shall tick "N' (for No). In case the exporter does not intend to claim the benefit of reward under Chapter 3 of FTP exporter shall tick "N' (for No). Such marking/ticking shall be required even for export shipments under any of the schemes of Chapter 4 (including drawback), Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 of FTP. (ii) Non-EDI Shipping Bills: In the case of non-EDI Shipping Bills, Export shipments would need the following declaration on the Shipping Bills in order to be eligible for claiming rewards under MEIS: "We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports From India Scheme (MEIS)". Such declaration shall be required even for export shipments under any of the schemes of Chapter 4 (including drawback), Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 of FTP.” 41. Thus in case of EDI shipping bills, intent to avail benefits under MEIS is to be declared by selecting ‘Y’ (for Yes) in the reward column whereas, in the case of non-EDI shipping bills the declaration “We intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)” is to be made in shipping bills. Accordingly, the petitioners have been claiming MEIS benefit from time to time. 42. However, during the period from May 2017 to March, 2018, the petitioners filed multiple shipping bills for export of cans but due to oversight, shipping bill was processed with default option ’NO’ without selecting ‘YES’ for making exports under MEIS and therefore, the exports were not considered for export incentive benefit. 43. As per para 3.04 of the Foreign Trade Policy, the products listed in Appendix 3B shall be eligible for MEIS scrips and the basis for calculation of these rewards would be on realised FOB value of export in free foreign exchange. Para 3.04 of the FTP reads as under: “3.04 Entitlement under MEIS Exports of notified goods/products with ITC[HS] code, to notified markets as listed in Appendix 3B, shall be rewarded under MEIS. Appendix 3B also lists the rate(s) of rewards on various notified products [ITC (HS) code wise). The basis of calculation of reward would be on realized FOB value of exports in free foreign exchange, or on FOB value of exports as given in the Shipping Bills in freely convertible foreign currencies, whichever is less, unless otherwise specified.” 44. Items entitled for MEIS benefits are listed in Appendix-3B of the FTP as under: MEIS Sr. The basis of calculation of reward would be on realized FOB value of exports in free foreign exchange, or on FOB value of exports as given in the Shipping Bills in freely convertible foreign currencies, whichever is less, unless otherwise specified.” 44. Items entitled for MEIS benefits are listed in Appendix-3B of the FTP as under: MEIS Sr. No. Handicraft Flag ITCHS 2017 ITCHS 2017 Description ITCHS 2012 ITCHS 2012 Description MEIS Rate 5420 76129090 Other 76129090 Other Containers: NES. 2 45. Thus the goods exported by the petitioners are covered within Appendix-3B and petitioner has earned the foreign exchange in respect of those exports. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have satisfied the substantive conditions for the entitlement of the benefit of MEIS Scheme. However, the only dispute pertains to non-declaration of the intention to avail the benefit under Chapter 3 on the shipping bills covering the export consignment. 46. Section 149 of the Customs Act reads as under: “149. Amendment of documents. - Save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after it has been presented in the custom house to be amended Provided that no amendment of a bill of entry or a shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorized to be amended after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be.” 47. On perusal of the section 149, it appears that when amendment to shipping bill after export of goods is sought, the same is governed by the proviso to section 149 and if the requirements of the proviso of section 149 are satisfied, the amendment has to be allowed. 48. This Court in the case of Gokul Overseas (supra) in the facts before the court, where the petitioner omitted to file declaration of intent within three months from the date of the late export order as stipulated in the CBEC circular no.36/10 dated 29.03.2010 for availing the benefits under the Merchandise Exports From India Scheme (MEIS) was permitted as all other relevant material available as the petitioner before the Court was eligible for the benefit of MEIS. It was observed by the Court as under:- “34. In the facts of the present case, as noticed earlier, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not otherwise covered by Circular No.36/2010-Customs dated 23.09.2010. The sole ground on which the application has been rejected is for non compliance of condition (a) of paragraph 3 of the said circular, namely that the application has been filed beyond a period of three months from the date of filing the Let Export Order. 35. At this juncture, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2017 (348) ELT 634 (Del.), on which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, wherein the question that arose for consideration was: "Did the CESTAT fall into error in upholding the denial of the petitioner's claim for amendment of its shipping document under section 149 of the Customs Act." The court held thus: "7. In the present case, the appellant had been consistently dealing with the same goods and exporting them previously for over three years. The pre- condition of a declaration along with the relative forms, for grant of benefit was introduced on 1-4-2008 through an amendment to the Handbook of Procedures. It is now settled law that the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, the rules or regulations framed thereunder and the export import policy have the force of law. Handbook of Procedures and the amendments carried out thereto are per se C/SCA/7500/2019 JUDGMENT not declaration of law but only impose conditions which are to be fulfilled and otherwise conform to the requirements of law. Without making a deeper analysis of these legal provisions, the facts of this case reveal that the export goods are essentially agricultural produce and continued to be covered as an item eligible for benefit. At the time, just prior to 1-4-2008, the goods had been exported as free shipping bills. The exporter/appellant's fault here is that it did not file the requisite declaration. In all other respects, i.e. as to whether they conform to the description in the shipping documents and the value, etc. continues to be ascertainable because the concerned bills, invoices and other shipping documents are available with the customs authorities. 8. The exporter/appellant's fault here is that it did not file the requisite declaration. In all other respects, i.e. as to whether they conform to the description in the shipping documents and the value, etc. continues to be ascertainable because the concerned bills, invoices and other shipping documents are available with the customs authorities. 8. Having regard to these, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the omission to file the declaration of the kind we are concerned with, when all other relative materials are present was not vital to the appellant's case. The material which did and does exist is substantial; the appellant should, therefore, be permitted to amend its shipping bill. The respondents are directed to give effect to this order within the next two months. The appeal is consequently allowed." 36. In the opinion of this court, the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As is evident from the letter dated 07/08.09.2019 (Annexure- O to the petition), the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kandla SEZ, Gandhidham (Office of the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone) has, in the context of the petitioner's request for amendment in the shipping bills to incorporate 'declaration of intent', furnished comments for specific recommendations on the issue to respondent No.6 - Assistant Commissioner (Exports), Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, stating that the petitioner is filing regularly its claim for similar goods under MEIS for later periods and it appears that the petitioner is, otherwise, eligible for the said scheme. Therefore, in the light of the provisions of section 149 of the Act read with the provisions of Circular No.36/2010 Customs dated 23.09.2010 and Notification No.40/2012(NT) dated 02.05.2012, the decision regarding conversion may be taken on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time when the goods were exported, subject to the satisfaction of the competent authority. 37. Thus, except for the fact that the request for conversion of the free shipping bill to MEIS shipping bill has been made beyond the time prescribed in Circular No.36/2010- Customs dated 23.09.2010, no other objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents. 37. Thus, except for the fact that the request for conversion of the free shipping bill to MEIS shipping bill has been made beyond the time prescribed in Circular No.36/2010- Customs dated 23.09.2010, no other objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents. In the opinion of this court, having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case, the omission to file 'declarationof intent' when all other relevant material is available, is not fatal to the petitioner's case. As in the case of Kedia (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (supra), in the facts of the present case also, in all other respects, that is, as to whether the goods conform to the description in the shipping documents and the value, etc. continues to be ascertainable because the concerned bills, invoices and other shipping documents are available with the customs authorities. The respondents are, therefore, not justified in turning down the request to convert the shipping bills of the petitioner from free to MEIS and thereby depriving the petitioner of the benefits under the MEIS in respect of exports made under such shipping bills.” 49. This Court in the case of Oriental Carbon And Chemicals Limited vs. Union Of India, reported in 2021 (377) E.L.T 850 (Guj) has held as under:- 21. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically permits amendment of the shipping bills even after the export on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were exported. There is no restriction in the said provision for not allowing the amendment after the goods are exported unless the goods are checked at the time of export. Hence, the authorities cannot to introduce such restrictions de hors the said provision. The respondents had themselves asked the writ-applicant to remove the deficiency (i.e. lack of declaration) vide their letters issued in August 2018. Therefore, the respondents were ready to allow the writ-applicant's claim despite the said declaration not having been there on the shipping bills at the relevant point of time. This contention, therefore, has no substance. 22. This Court, as well as other High Courts have allowed several petitions where the free shipping bills were allowed to be amended and/or the MEIS benefits were directed to be given despite lack of declaration. This contention, therefore, has no substance. 22. This Court, as well as other High Courts have allowed several petitions where the free shipping bills were allowed to be amended and/or the MEIS benefits were directed to be given despite lack of declaration. [See (i) Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, 2021 (3) TMI 9; (ii) Judgment dated 8.2.2021 in the case of M/s. Raj & Co. vs. UOI; (iii) M/s. Gokul Overseas vs. UOI, (SCA No.7500 of 2019 decided on 21.1.2020), wherein this Court had allowed the petition, inter alia, holding that whether the goods confirm to the description, etc. is ascertainable from the shipping bills, invoices, etc. available with the Customs authorities; (iv) Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Kedia Agencies vs. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2017 (348) ELT 634 (Del); (v) Madras High Court judgment in the case of Pasha International vs. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2019 (365) ELT 669 (Mad); (vi) Madras High Court judgment in the case of Global Calcium vs. Asst. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2019 (370) ELT 176 (Mad); and (vii) Madras High Court judgment in the case of P.A. Footwear vs. DGFT, reported in 2020 (372) ELT 660 (Mad)]. 23. The aforenoted decisions squarely cover the present matter 24. So far as the second objection raised on behalf of the respondents is concerned, we may only say that Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not prescribe any time limit. In fact, at the relevant point of time, it did not even provide for the fixation of the time limit by way of rules or regulations. Therefore, no time limit can be read into the said provision nor can it be introduced by way of a circular. It is well-settled that a subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the parent statute or impose a limitation or restriction not found in the parent statute. 25. This Court, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Lykis Limited, 2021 (2) TMI 261, has upheld the Tribunal’s judgment holding that when no time limit is prescribed in Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, no such time limit can be fixed by way of a circular. 26. 25. This Court, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Lykis Limited, 2021 (2) TMI 261, has upheld the Tribunal’s judgment holding that when no time limit is prescribed in Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, no such time limit can be fixed by way of a circular. 26. In the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Rubtech vs. UOI, (SCA No.21636 of2019, decided on 2.3.2021), this Court upheld that the Circular is ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the said Circular cannot be relied upon. 27. In the present case, the authorities had themselves sought clarification from the DGFT as to whether such declaration was mandatory prior to 1.6.2015 and were awaiting such clarification. The authorities had even issued three scrips to the writ-applicant against six of its applications, which were later suspended while awaiting such clarification. Hence, it is not correct to blame the writ-applicant for not having sought amendment immediately. 28. Unlike in other cases, in the present case, no authority issued any communication to the writ-applicant to seek amendment of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Even the letters addressed by the respondents in August 2018, asking to remove the deficiency, did not specify that the writ-applicant would have to seek amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said letters were addressed at the wrong address of the writapplicant, despite the writ-applicant having intimated the change of its address to the authorities vide its letter dated 3.8.2016. In such circumstances, the writ-applicant received these letters in October 2018, and immediately thereupon, the writ-applicant addressed letters dated 31.10.2018 categorically declaring its intention to claim the MEIS benefits and removing the defects. When nothing was heard at the end of the authorities, the writ-applicant filed a formal application seeking amendment of the shipping bills. Thus, the writ-applicant cannot be said to have delayed, when the issue, whether or not the declaration was required prior to 1.6.2015 was under consideration by the authorities and when the authorities themselves have never asked the writ-applicant to amend the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and have only asked to remove the defect and that too as late as in August 2018. 29. Even in the case of M/s. Gokul Overseas (supra), there was a delay. 29. Even in the case of M/s. Gokul Overseas (supra), there was a delay. However, this Court, vide judgment dated 21.1.2020, allowed the petition, inter alia, holding that, whether the goods confirm to the description, etc is ascertainable from the shipping bills, invoices, etc. available with the Customs authorities. 30. So far as the last objection raised on behalf of the respondents is concerned, we may observe that in the case of the EDI shipping bills, the declaration is by ticking “Y” (for Yes) in the reward column, which was not done by several exporters who had exported through the EDI ports. This was the exporter's mistake as well as the inadvertent omission of declaration on the shipping bill in the case of the non-EDI shipping bills. Therefore, to discriminate between the two would be unreasonable and unfair. 31. There is no dispute that the writ-applicant is eligible to claim the benefits under the MEIS since it has admittedly exported the notified goods to the notified countries as per the scheme of the MEIS. 32. The writ-applicant has been exporting the very same goods prior to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-20, and claiming the benefits under the then extant Focus Market Scheme (FMS) and has subsequently also exported the very same goods and claimed the benefits under the MEIS scheme. 33. The only lapse is with regard to the inadvertent nonmention of the declaration of intent as per Clause 3.14 of the Handbook of Procedures during the period between 1.4.2015 and 31.3.2015, i.e. during the initial period of the FTP, 2015-20. 34. The writ-applicant's shipping bills were non-EDI only because the Mundra Port was not an EDI port. 35. This lapse being a technical or a procedural lapse, the writapplicant should not be denied substantive benefits, as held by this Court in the case of Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 36. The authorities themselves were not sure whether the declaration was mandatory prior to 1.6.2015 as is evident from the following : (a) Public Notice No. 40/2015-20 dated 9.10.2015 wherein, in para 3, it is stated that such declaration is mandatory from 1.6.2015. (b) The authorities had even issued three scrips to the writ-applicant against six of its applications. (c) The authorities had, in fact, sought clarification from the DGFT as to whether the declaration was mandatory prior to 1.6.2015. 37. (b) The authorities had even issued three scrips to the writ-applicant against six of its applications. (c) The authorities had, in fact, sought clarification from the DGFT as to whether the declaration was mandatory prior to 1.6.2015. 37. The authorities themselves have permitted the writ-applicant to remove the defect vide their letters dated August 2018. 38. The case of M/s. Gokul Overseas (supra) is similar to the case on hand. In that case also the shipping bills were non-EDI and this Court allowed the petition. That apart, even the Delhi High Court, in the case of Kedia Agencies (supra), has held that omission to file declaration for claiming the export incentive under the erstwhile VYGUY scheme was not vital and the exporter should be permitted to amend its shipping bill. 39. In light of the aforesaid, it would be extremely unfair and unjust not to extend the benefits of the MEIS to the writ-applicant on the ground that it had exported goods from a non EDI port.” 50. This Court in case of Bombardier Transportation India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, reported in 2021 (377) E.L.T. 489, has held that in similar facts that the EDI system, which is an electronic system developed and managed by the respondent authority 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 and in view of settled law that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to technical error or lacunae in the electronic system. 51. This Court in the case of M/s.Deendayal Port Trust vs. Union of India, reported in 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 188 (Guj.) in the facts of the said case, it was held that the department was directed to consider the CENVAT credit claim made by the petitioner by allowing the petitioner to re-revise the service tax, return manually and thereafter, to revise GST Tran-1 online so as to grant the benefit of carried forward of the CENVAT credit manually. 52. 52. This Court in case of M/s.Jindal Saw Ltd. (supra) has held that software has its own limitation and it does not permit even after the manual correction of the shipping bills, the benefit to flow of MEIS Scheme as it does not recognize the manual correction, the petitioner is deprived of such benefits as no technicality can mark the rights of the parties, which otherwise accrued under the substantive law. This Court has held as under:- “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. 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.” 53. This Court in case of M/s.Siddharth Enterprises (supra) has held that by not allowing the right to carry forward the CENVAT credit for not being able to file the form GST TRAN-1 within the due date may severely dent the working capital of the petitioner and may diminish an ability to continue the business, which would the mandate of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It was further held that Article 300A which provides that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law while right to the property is no longer a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right and CENVAT credit earned under the erstwhile Central Excise Law is the property of the writ-applicants and it cannot be appropriated for merely failing to file a declaration in the absence of Law in this respect. Accordingly, respondent authorities were directed to permit the petitioner to allow the filing of declaration in form GST TRAN-1 so as to enable them to claim transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act. 54. Accordingly, respondent authorities were directed to permit the petitioner to allow the filing of declaration in form GST TRAN-1 so as to enable them to claim transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act. 54. This Court in case of M/S Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd vs. Union Of India, reported in 2023 (4) TMI 789 in similar facts of granting benefit under RoDTEP scheme has issued the following directions:- “5. As the controversy unfolds as above, the court is of the view that the following directions would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly it is provided that, (i) The petitioner shall be entitled to claim the RoDTEP Scheme benefit in respect of the exports of white refined sugar at the rate permissible. Even if such benefit is not claimed or mentioned in the shipping bills, the petitioner is permitted to make necessary application seeking such benefit in respect of the consignments concerned. (ii) The passage of time in making such applications which would occur as amount would not be mentioned in the shipping bills, would not render the claim of the petitioner time barred. (iii) The non-mentioning of the claim of the benefit in the shipping bill by the petitioner shall also not be treated as waiver on part of the petitioner by the authorities. (iv) The authority shall process the claim of the petitioner for RoDTEP Scheme benefit irrespective of the fact that the same was not mentioned or lodged along with the shipping bill concerned. (v) If any adjudicatory proceedings are require to be undertaken by the authorities in respect of the claim of the petitioner for the benefit, the respondent Nos.3- The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and respondent No.4- The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (DBK), Kandla, shall while deciding the claim, extend opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall act in accordance with Section 28 of the Customs Act. 6. Except giving the above directions, the court has not gone into any other aspect in the subject matter including the extent of exports which may be allowed by customs authorities under the export policy.” 55. 6. Except giving the above directions, the court has not gone into any other aspect in the subject matter including the extent of exports which may be allowed by customs authorities under the export policy.” 55. Considering the above conspectus of law, this petition is also disposed of by following directions, which would serve the ends of justice:- (i) The petitioner shall be entitled to MEIS scheme benefit in respect of the exports of the goods by the respondent authorities in view of the amendment of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) The respondent authorities are directed to process the claim of the petitioner for MEIS scheme. 56. Except giving the above directions, this Court has not gone into any other aspect of the subject matter including the extent of exports, including the extent of benefit under the MEIS scheme, which may be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. 57. The petition is accordingly disposed of as per above directions. Notice is discharged.