2021 (3) TMI 1166 - AT - Customs

Levy of penal charges for late presentation of Bill-of-Entry - HELD THAT - This has considered similar issue in the case of M/S. BLUELEAF TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE 2019 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that Appellant is clearly not the first importer, there is request for amendment in IGM on record, allowed by the Revenue after collecting requisite fees and these are clearly post-import developments. The subsequent developments, were perhaps necessitated because of the goods being perishable. Clearly, no mala fide is found in the above developments by the Revenue and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with sufficient cause . Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penal charges for late presentation of Bill-of-Entry.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the imposition of penal charges for late presentation of the Bill-of-Entry. The vessel carrying Heavy Melting Scrap arrived at Tuticorin Port, and due to financial problems faced by the consignee, a new buyer, the appellant-firm, was offered the consignment for sale. The consignment details were subsequently amended, and penal charges were paid to avoid demurrage and CFS charges. The appellant appealed the levy of penal charges, which was rejected by the Commissioner, leading to the present appeal before the forum.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate cited previous cases where the CESTAT had deleted late fees in similar situations. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue, however, supported the lower authorities' findings. The Member (Judicial) referred to the previous decisions of the CESTAT where it was observed that the late fee was not justified in the appellant's case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the adjudicating authority to charge late fees from the date of agreement between the shipper and the appellant, which was deemed incorrect. The Member (Judicial) highlighted that the appellant was not the first importer but a subsequent buyer, and the Act only allows charging late fees from the importer per se. The order imposing penal charges was deemed unsustainable and set aside based on the lack of justification for charging the late fee.

Therefore, the impugned order was found to be unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs as per the law. The penal charges for late presentation of the Bill-of-Entry were set aside, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the legal provisions governing the imposition of such charges.