DGFT Not Justified for Not Processing MEIS Applications Due to Systemic Glitches: HC

The petitioner, BFN Forgings Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition with the Bombay High Court seeking relief for the following things:

• To give direction to Respondents 4 and 5 to make necessary changes in the EDI system and transmit details of the 174 shipping bills to DGFT.
• To give directions to Respondents 2 and 3 to allow MEIS rewards for the 174 shipping bills.

Submission Made by Petitioner

The learned Counsel of Petitioner submitted that the issues, in this case, had already been decided earlier in another case, Technocraft Industries (India) Limited Vs The Union of India & Ors 1.

He also presented a communication confirming that, apart from the manual changes, the corrections have also been made electronically. Additionally, the counsel also referred to the judgement in Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., submitting that DGFT cannot refuse to process the MEIS applications for reasons not attributable to the Petitioner.

High Court’s Decision

The High Court did not find any justification for the DGFT not processing the petitioner’s MEIS applications for the 174 shipping bills, especially now that most of the technical issues seem to be solved.

The High Court quoted its decision taken in the matter of Larsen & Toubro:

In Larsen & Toubro (supra), the court observed that ” “Artificial intelligence cannot be at the cost of mortgaging human intelligence entirely. Technology is to serve the people and not to place booby traps and make life extremely difficult for the people. It is otherwise. If there are some gaps in the existing handling systems, bonafide parties cannot be made to suffer. The human element endowed with discretion and reason must step in. The officials operating such systems, or the officials tasked with implementing the law and the Government schemes, cannot abdicate responsibility, raise their hands, deny legitimate relief or make parties run from pillar to post and ultimately the Courts to get their dues. The officials who handle technology must deal with matters with the sensitivity and intelligence that the situation requires.

The DGFT cannot adopt an attitude that its technological systems are not geared to deal with such situations and that its officials will not deal with such situations. Human and artificial intelligence must join to serve the people and achieve ease of business and not be at loggerheads. Suppose any party is entitled to any benefits under the law or under the schemes formulated by the Government to promote exports or trade. In that case, such benefits must not be denied or unduly delayed by citing technological glitches or the fact that the current electronic systems meant to assist the implementation of the law or operation of such schemes are inadequate or need revamping. What the law grants cannot be denied or unduly delayed by technology meant only to assist in implementing the law. If such an approach continues, the claims of leveraging technology to serve the people or ease of doing business will remain paper slogans.”

Therefore, the court gave the following directions:

• Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to process the petitioner’s MEIS applications as soon as possible, within six weeks from the date this order is uploaded.
• The decision must be communicated to the petitioner within six weeks.