Order Date – 22 February 2023

Parties: Horizon Aerospace (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors.

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Horizon Aerospace (India) Pvt Ltd, had carried out exports in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy (2015-2020) and is entitled for Duty Credit Scrips (MEIS scrips) under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme. It is submitted that the said scrip was granted to the Petitioner by the Respondent, on 11th June, 2021.
• However, the same was cancelled vide show cause notice dated 14th July, 2021 on the ground that the transaction/ supply is DTA to a SEZ/FTWZ.
• The Petitioner submits that the transaction in the present case was a case of pure export and not a case of export within India from Domestic Traffic Area (DTA) unit to Special Economic Zone (SEZ)/ Free Trade Warehouse Zone (FTWZ) unit located in India. It would also not qualify as an export made by unit in FTWZ.   
• Respondent, submits that since the export seems to be between two entities in India, thus the Petitioner is not entitled to issuance of MEIS scrips. 

Issue –

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to Duty Credit Scrips (MEIS scrips) under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the company i.e. M/s Siddhartha Logistics is merely a FTWZ logistics company located in Andhra Pradesh. It was merely providing logistical support to enable the shipment move within India and ultimately to the French customer i.e. Dedienne Aerospace. Further, it is also noticed that M/s Siddhartha Logistics has already issued its no objection giving consent to the Petitioner to claim the drawback benefits.
• Under such circumstances, though the shipping bills dated 30th July, 2018 and 19th July 2018 describe M/s Siddhartha Logistics as an exporter or as the client, the actual exporter is Horizon Aerospace (India) Pvt. Ltd., The mere description or misdescription in the shipping bill for whatever compelling reasons, does not change the actual factum as to who actually exported the goods and received consideration for the same. 
• The documents, which have been placed on record, leave no manner of doubt that the case of the Petitioner is clearly covered by the FTP. None of the exclusionary clauses would be applicable. The Petitioner was rightly issued the MEIS scrips. However, due to inexplicable reasons, the same was sought to be cancelled.
• Hence the petition is liable to be allowed. The action of the Respondent cancelling the MEIS scrips is also set aside. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to revalidate the MEIS scrips which were granted to the Petitioner so as to enable the Petitioner to encash the same in its usual course of business.