← Library
Madras High CourtWP/7595/2025disposed of

R.Kanchana Devi v. The Chief Commissioner Of Customs

2025-03-07Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE R.Kanchana Devi .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Chief Commissioner Customs, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House, Chennai - 1.

2.The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Port Area, Visakapattinam, Andra Pradesh - 530035.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction subside for the shipping bills invoice Nos.EIC 222 to EIC 239 under Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products (RODTEP) scheme, by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 16.08.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Sr. Counsel for Mr.V.Ravikumar For Respondents : Ms.Pooja Jain, Junior Standing Counsel 1/5

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents to sanction subsidy for the shipping bills bearing Invoice Nos.EIC 222 to EIC 239 under Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products (RODTEP) scheme based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2023, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. According to the petitioner, inadvertently, she has committed a mistake. According to her, the earlier customs agent, i.e., PRR Trans Logistics had submitted the petitioner's shipping bills through online and in the first four invoices, RODTEP column was filled as 'Yes', but, in all other shipping bills from invoices EIC 222 to El 239 in MEIS scheme, it is mentioned as 'Yes'; and on the other hand, for the same invoices, under MEIS column, it is mentioned as 'Yes', whereas under RODTEP column, it is mentioned as 'No' and only in the above said invoices alone, the said mistake has been crept in by the earlier customs housing agent; and all other bills were correctly filled and mentioned as RODTEP scheme. In view of the inadvertent mistake committed by the earlier customs agent, 2/5

the petitioner claims that the petitioner is deprived from getting benefits of 1% subsidy under RODTEP scheme, as, according to the petitioner, it was formulated by the Government to encourage exporters. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 16.08.2023 to the respondents for the aforementioned purpose. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Ms.Pooja Jain, learned junior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2023 is considered on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, this Court directs the first respondent to pass final orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2023 seeking for subsidy for the shipping bills bearing Invoice Nos.EIC 222 to EIC 239 under RODTEP scheme, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This 3/5

Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representation and it is for the respondents to consider the same on merits. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. 07.03.2025 Index: yes/no speaking/non-speaking rkm To 1.The Chief Commissioner Customs, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House, Chennai - 1.

2.The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Port Area, Visakapattinam, Andra Pradesh - 530035.

4/5

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

rkm 07.03.2025 5/5