2016 (1) TMI 1174 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - late filing of Counsel General Manifests for the period from April, 2007 to January, 2009 - delay in filing of manifests on 490 occasions - Held that - The notice leading to imposition of penalty covered alleged contravention over a period of 22 months and were issued after a lapse of five months following the latest incident covered in the notice. From the response of the appellant to the proceedings before the original authority, all cannot be attributed to deliberate intent or casual approach. The justification offered by the appellant was not considered even though Section 30 of the Customs Act 1962, which empowers the imposition of penalty, enjoins the proper officer to do so. While Section 122A of Customs Act, 1962 prescribes hearing before imposing penalty, the provisions of Section 124 i.e., issue of notice is not a requirement for action under Section 30. From a plain reading of that provision, it would appear that this provision is intended as a summary disposal after hearing. Such summary disposal would have enabled the proper authority to adjudge justification for delay on each occasion instead of peremptory dismissal of justification offered for the 490 occasions at one go. To that extent, it would appear that there has been miscarriage of justice - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for late filing of Counsel General Manifests.
2. Justifiability of delay in filing manifests.
3. Interpretation of penalty provisions under Customs Act, 1962.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for penalty imposition.
5. Consideration of reasons for delay in filing manifests.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered agent for filing Consolidated General Manifests at Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai, appealed against the penalty imposed for late filing of manifests. The penalty of &8377; 4,90,000/- was imposed by the original authority for delays in filing manifests on 490 occasions from April 2007 to January 2009.

2. The appellant contended that the delay in filing was due to reasons beyond their control, such as issues with ICEGATE, power supply disruptions, time constraints with short-haul flights, and intervening holidays. They argued that out of 179 submissions, only 96 cases were attributable to them, while the rest were beyond their control.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of manifests in ensuring proper control over imported goods for duty collection and prevention of smuggling, as per the Customs Act, 1962. The Act mandates penalties for delays in filing manifests, with the person-in-charge liable for penalties up to &8377; 50,000/- if unable to justify the delay.

4. The judgment discussed the procedural requirements for penalty imposition under Sections 30, 122A, and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. It noted that while Section 122A requires a hearing before imposing a penalty, Section 124 does not mandate issuing a notice for penalty under Section 30. The judgment pointed out a potential miscarriage of justice due to a summary dismissal of justifications for delays without individual consideration.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and providing consequential relief to the appellant. The decision was based on the finding that there had been a miscarriage of justice in not adequately considering the justifications for the delays in filing manifests on each occasion, leading to the imposition of a cumulative penalty without due process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the penalty for late filing of Counsel General Manifests, the justifiability of delays, the interpretation of penalty provisions, compliance with procedural requirements, and the consideration of reasons for delays in filing manifests as per the Customs Act, 1962.