2012 (9) TMI 312 - AT - Customs

Penalty - respondents sought to file the bills of entry after a lapse of more than thirty days from the date of unloading of the imported goods Held that - Section 48 stipulates that, if the imported goods are not cleared for home consumption or warehoused or transshipped within 30 days from the date of unloading thereof at a customs station or within such other and with the permission of the proper officer he sold by the custodian. Thus, Section 48 of the Customs Act empowers the proper officer either to grant further time for clearance of imported goods or to permit the custodian to sell off such goods. The Section 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 - appeal filed by the Revenue dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to comply with provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act by importer.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Act.
3. Interpretation of Sections 46 and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Legality of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the late filing of bills of entry by the importer, which the Revenue contended as a violation of Section 48(1) of the Act. The Revenue argued that the importer failed to comply with the time limit prescribed in the Act, rendering themselves liable to penalty under Section 117 of the Act. The Revenue relied on a previous Tribunal order to support its position.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that Section 46 does not specify a time period for filing a bill of entry after import, and Section 48 allows the proper officer to grant further time for clearance of imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that failure to clear goods within the time stipulated under Section 48 does not constitute a contravention under Section 117 for non-filing of a bill of entry within 30 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the Act does not provide penal consequences for not filing a bill of entry within the specified time.

3. The judgment further referenced other orders to support the legal correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The Orders-in-Appeal and a decision by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad were cited as additional backing for the Commissioner (Appeals)'s stance on the matter. These orders affirmed the interpretation of Sections 46 and 48 and the absence of penal provisions for late filing of bills of entry.

4. The judgment clarified that Section 48 of the Act pertains to the procedure for goods imported into India that are not cleared, warehoused, or transshipped within thirty days from the date of unloading. After reviewing the facts, decisions, and findings in both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, the judgment concluded that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not sustainable. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld with any consequential relief granted.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad highlights the issues raised, the legal interpretations provided, and the ultimate decision rendered in the case.