2019 (7) TMI 11 - AT - Customs

Refund of amount paid by assessee as late filing charges - filing of bills of entry - delay in filing due to bonafide reasons - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that imposition of late filing charges is not mandatory but it is only subject to non-satisfaction as to the sufficiency of reasons. It is a matter of record that the appellant made its first import and accordingly filed the Bill of Entry on an earlier occasion dated 28.07.2017, which was appellant s first import. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant was regularly importing cut and polished diamonds through Mumbai Airport - Considering the difficulties faced by the importers which had resulted in delayed presentation of Bill/s-of-Entry, the CBEC has issued instructions from time to time and both Section 46 and the instructions of the Board do not prescribe the late filing charges as mandatory, but is subject to the guidelines in Board instructions. When an item is imported at a notified airport, the authorities cannot find fault with such import for want of proper officers, which is not the concern of the importer. Statute notifies an airport and through law requires appointment of appraising staff and if no such officers are appointed, then such deficiency which is not attributable to an importer cannot force an assessee to search for alternate options and in any case, the appointment or otherwise as above of proper officers is not the choice of the importer - In this case, it is a fact borne on record that the importer made sincere efforts and even went to the extent of requesting for engaging an appraiser, at its cost, which is undisputed by the Revenue. There is no delay on the part of the appellant in filing the Bill of Entry; and if there is no delay, the same cannot be attributed to the appellant - demanding late filing charges cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund for late filing charges.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claimed by the assessee for the late filing charges paid. The appellant, a manufacturer of Gold and Diamond jewellery, imported polished natural diamonds through Coimbatore Airport. The customs authorities informed the appellant not to file the Bill of Entry due to the unavailability of proper appraising staff. The appellant requested to arrange an appraiser and offered to bear the expenses. Despite facing difficulties in transit and bond value, the appellant insisted on filing the Bill of Entry, leading to a delay of 48 days. The appellant argued that the delay was due to bonafide reasons beyond their control and the lack of proper appraising staff at the airport. The appellant contended that late fees could be waived if sufficient cause is shown, supported by correspondences with the department. On the other hand, the Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings, stating that the appellant was informed about the staff shortage and should not have imported through Coimbatore Airport. The Revenue cited standing orders and circulars to justify the rejection of the refund claim.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. It was noted that the imposition of late filing charges is not mandatory and is subject to the satisfaction of the sufficiency of reasons. The appellant had previously imported goods through Mumbai Airport and faced challenges in importing through Coimbatore Airport due to the lack of proper appraising staff. The Tribunal analyzed Section 46 of the Customs Act, which deals with the entry of goods on importation and the time limit for filing the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal highlighted that late filing charges are not mandatory but subject to guidelines in Board instructions.

The Tribunal observed that the Revenue did not dispute the arrival date of the goods or claim that the goods were contraband. It was acknowledged that Coimbatore Airport is a notified airport under the Customs Act, and the appellant was asked not to import goods there. The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of proper officers at the airport should not be the concern of the importer, as the statute mandates the appointment of appraising staff. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant made sincere efforts to comply with the requirements, including offering to engage an appraiser at their cost. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no delay on the part of the appellant in filing the Bill of Entry and set aside the demand for late filing charges, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the rejection of the refund claim for late filing charges. The decision was based on the lack of delay attributable to the appellant and the statutory provisions regarding late filing charges under the Customs Act.