2019 (5) TMI 724 - AT - Customs

Penalty under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of Customs Act, 1962 - Amendment in IGM - whether the appellant is liable for penalty as per the provision of section 30(1) read with Section 117 of Customs Act only for the reason that the appellant have made application for additional entry in IGM? HELD THAT - In the entire facts of the case there is no intentional offence on the part of the appellant, it is beyond the control of the appellant that in the landed goods, two plates were found in excess accordingly, they have on their own filed an application for allowing supplementary/ additional entry in relevant IGM which was also permitted by the Mundra Custom House on a deposit of ₹ 1000/- being a custom fees - there are no reasons to impose any penalty. On going through the section 30(1) read with Clause (iii), it is found that the penalty can be imposed only if there is delay in delay in submission of IGM to the proper officer, however in the present case, there is no delivery of submission in IGM. The appellant is not liable for penalty under Section 30(1) read with Section 117 of Customs Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 30(1) read with Section 117 of Customs Act for making an application for additional entry in IGM.

Analysis:
The case involves the appellant, a vessel agent, who filed an Import manifest (IGM) on behalf of the master of a vessel. Subsequently, they requested an amendment in the IGM due to technical errors in the system, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?10,000. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjust as they had applied for supplementary entry for excess landed cargo, not an incorrect filing amendment. They contended that the penalty was imposed without considering factual documents and without any fraudulent intention. The appellant cited the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. 1978 (ELT) J159 to support their argument.

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, upholding the penalty.

Upon review, the Member (Judicial) analyzed the provisions of Section 30(1) of the Customs Act, which pertains to the delivery of import manifest or import report. It was noted that the penalty could only be imposed in case of a delay in submitting the IGM. In this case, there was no delay in submission, but an application for supplementary entry was made due to excess landed cargo. The Member found no intentional offense on the part of the appellant and concluded that the permission granted for supplementing the entry was in accordance with the law. Therefore, the appellant was not liable for the penalty under Section 30(1) read with Section 117 of the Customs Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of Section 30(1) of the Customs Act concerning the imposition of penalties for incorrect or incomplete submission of import manifest. The Member (Judicial) concluded that in this case, where the appellant applied for supplementary entry due to excess landed cargo without any fraudulent intention, the penalty was unjustified. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside.