2010 (8) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Penalty delay in filing bill of entry - Section 48 of the Act does not contain any penal consequences in the event a bill of entry is not filed or goods are not cleared within the time stipulated - no merit ion appeal - appeals are rejected

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Sections 46 and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the filing of a bill of entry and the consequences of not clearing imported goods within the prescribed time limit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved two separate appeals with a common issue. The respondents failed to file a bill of entry within thirty days from the date of unloading of imported goods, leading to a penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly interpreted the law, stating that Section 46 of the Act requires a bill of entry to be filed for clearance without specifying a time limit. However, Section 48 allows for clearance within 30 days from unloading, with the option for the proper officer to grant an extended period or sell the goods if not cleared. Importantly, the Commissioner noted that failure to clear goods within the time limit under Section 48 does not constitute a contravention under Section 117 of the Act.

The Commissioner's analysis emphasized that Section 48 empowers the proper officer to grant additional time for clearance or authorize the sale of goods if not cleared within the stipulated period. Notably, there are no explicit provisions in Section 48 for attaching pre-conditions for extending the time period, whether monetary or otherwise. The judgment underscores that if an importer fails to clear goods within the specified timeframe, Customs or the custodian can dispose of the goods under Section 48 read with Section 150 of the Act after the 30-day period expires. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's interpretation, finding the department's appeal without merit and rejecting both appeals.