9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 212 - HC - CustomsRequirement of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage Department as per the Clause 3(16) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 - import of consignment of Bamboo Sticks - It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage Department had issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioner to import as early as on 14.05.2020, it was not properly uploaded in the ICEGATE server of the respondent/ Customs Department for assessing the Bill of Entry, as a result of which, the container in which the imported Bamboo Sticks were imported attracted detention charges from the Liner - HELD THAT - The fact on record indicates that the petitioner had filed Bill of Entry on 24.04.2020 and Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage Department had processed the No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 14.05.2020. The No Objection Certificate (NOC) was however not uploaded for the reasons not known to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner kept sending representations to Help Desk of the Customs ICEGATE. Ultimately, No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 14.05.2020 was uploaded only on 25.05.2020 - petitioner has asked for a Detention Certificate for the period from 15.05.2020 to 25.05.2020. The respondent vide impugned Communication has rejected the request of the petitioner stating that there is no provision to issue Detention Certificate due to the Technical Error in ICEGATE and therefore, the Detention Certificate cannot be issued as prayed for by the petitioner. The method of filing of Bill of Entry and Exchange of information for assessment is online in the ICEGATE. Therefore, the delay on account of any technical glitches / error in uploading the relevant information document by the concerned Department cannot saddle an importer with liability unless the delay was itself on account of the importer. In this case, the respondent has not been able to show how there was any delay on the part of the petitioner. The clarification of the Central Board of Customs in C.B.E.C.F.No.501/9/75-Cus.VI , dated 01.12.1976 is still relevant. The benefit of the said clarification will enure to the petitioner mutatis mutandis in the context of assessment of Bill of Entry under the Bill of Entry (Electronic Integrated Declaration and Paperless Processing) Regulations, 2018. An importer cannot be denied Detention Certificate if the delay was not on account of any fault of the importer, but on account of the technical glitches in the system. The respondent are directed to issue Detention Certificate to the petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.
Issues:
Import of Bamboo Sticks, Delay in uploading NOC, Detention charges, Refund of excess amount, Technical glitches in ICEGATE, Issuance of Detention Certificate. Analysis: The petitioner imported Bamboo Sticks and filed a Bill of Entry, requiring a "No Objection Certificate (NOC)" from the Plant Protection Department. Despite receiving the NOC, it was not uploaded promptly in the ICEGATE server, leading to detention charges and demurrage on the imported consignment. The petitioner engaged with the help desk, but the issue persisted until the NOC was finally uploaded. The respondent argued that the delay was due to the petitioner's fault for not following proper procedures. The petitioner contended that without a Detention Certificate, they couldn't claim a refund for the excess charges paid. The respondent refused to issue the certificate, citing the petitioner's alleged fault. The petitioner emphasized that technical problems in uploading the NOC were beyond their control and should not result in financial penalties. The respondent highlighted regulations on electronic filing of documents and the petitioner's non-compliance with the 2018 regulations. The Court examined the historical context of regulations governing imports and customs procedures. It noted the transition to online filing and processing of Bill of Entry, emphasizing the importance of accurate and timely document submission. The Court referenced Circulars detailing the electronic exchange of information and release orders, stressing the system's efficiency post-2015. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, acknowledging the technical error in ICEGATE and the lack of fault on the petitioner's part. It directed the respondent to issue a Detention Certificate within 30 days, allowing the petitioner to claim a refund of the excess charges paid. The judgment highlighted that delays caused by technical glitches should not penalize importers unfairly, aligning with past clarifications on detention certificates. In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of timely document submission, the impact of technical errors on import processes, and the necessity of protecting importers from undue financial burdens arising from system failures.
|
