2019 (6) TMI 972 - AT - Customs

Waiver of late filing charges - late presentation of the Bill of Entry - confusion due to name in the Bill of lading - period 31.07.2017 to 08.02.2018 - the date of entry of the vessel at the port up to the date of presentation of amended IGM - Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - There is sufficient force in the contentions of the Ld. DR when he pointed out to the date of Bill of Lading from which it is very much clear that the appellant was also very much in the know of the developments. Some of the e-mail exchanges between the parties inter se placed on record refers to the correspondences made after the Bill of Lading which carries the name of the appellant as the consignee. Further, the correspondence/exchange of emails placed on record are all inter-se communications which are not having any evidentiary value and the same is not binding on the Revenue. Though the appellant has explained the delay up to the date of application for request of waiver, ie., 08.02.2018, the appellant s explanation is insufficient. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Late filing charges waiver for Bill of Entry submission.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported "Klabin Soft wood bleached kraft pulp - off grade" under a Bill of Lading dated 29.05.2017. The consignment arrived at Tuticorin Port on 31.07.2017. The importer disowned the cargo, leading to the appellant's involvement for clearance after an IGM amendment.
2. The Asst. Commissioner partially waived late filing charges for the period 09.02.2018 to 02.03.2018 but imposed charges for the period 31.07.2017 to 08.02.2018. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Trichy, seeking a complete waiver.
3. The appellant's advocate argued that the appellant acted promptly upon the importer's disownment, following necessary procedures for IGM and Bill of Entry amendments. The advocate cited Board's instruction No. 12/2017-Cus. dated 31.08.2017 to support the waiver claim.
4. The Revenue contended that the appellant delayed proceedings significantly, consuming 203 days between the invoice/Bill of Lading date and the request to change the consignee. The Revenue supported the Asst. Commissioner's decision to levy late filing charges.
5. The Tribunal found the appellant's explanation insufficient, noting contradictions in the dates on the original and amended Bill of Lading. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of clarity in the appellant's justifications and upheld the lower authorities' decision to dismiss the appeal for late filing charges waiver.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely compliance in customs procedures and the stringent criteria for waiver of late filing charges under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's decision underscores the need for clear and justifiable reasons to support waiver requests, especially when discrepancies exist in the documentation timeline.