9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 829 - AT - CustomsWaiver of late fees - Bill of Entry got purged before payment of duty through IGST - filing of fresh Bill of entry due to system error - late fee was leviable under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for filing Bill of Entry after the specified period and there would be no waiver of late fee - HELD THAT - The dispute concerning filing of previous Bill of Entry and its getting purged is not denied by the Respondent-Department nor by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order but as has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. C. M. Sharma, Bill of Entry was in fact filed by the end of next day of arrival of the goods at Mumbai Customs but it has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that on arrival of vessel, Bill of Entry filed prior to it did not get finalised through system with IGM inward entry. It is a common knowledge that for various technical reasons and system error or upon laps of time in rectifying the error shown in the ICEGATE system after submission Bill of Entry, it gets purged. This is unrelated to the issue on hand since compliance/non-compliance of Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be scrutinized for the purpose of confirmation of payment of late fee that was being imposed on the Appellant. Astonishing features of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which are treated as Order-in-Original and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are that both of them have not cited any reason as to why the Bill of Entry dated 25.09.2019 is not to be accepted as the Bill of Entry filed under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 except noting the submissions of Appellant that it got purged/erased in the system. More importantly, it is an indication of arbitrariness to say in the Order-in-Appeal at para 7 that Appellant had failed to provide any documentary evidence confirming any system related error due to which the delay in filing the Bill of Entry had taken place. This is something impossible and beyond the reach of the Appellant to get evidence from the computer system that is under the control of the Respondent-Department and operated by their Officials. The imposition of late fee itself and its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) by erroneously holding that there was no dispute of the fact that Bill of Entry was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, was irregular and unsupported by any legal provision. It has also caused considerable hardship to the Appellant by burdening the Appellant with further unnecessary litigation and by burdening the Tribunal in showing scanty respect to the law of the land for which, in view of the decision reported in SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. S.T., RAIPUR 2015 (9) TMI 1336 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the Respondent is also liable to compensate the Appellant by way of cost. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
Imposition of late fee under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for filing Bill of Entry after stipulated time. Analysis: Issue 1: Compliance with Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 The case involved the imposition of late fee equivalent to the duty of imported goods for filing a Bill of Entry after the specified time. The Appellant filed the Bill of Entry the day after the arrival of the goods, but it got purged before payment of duty through IGST. Despite the Appellant's efforts to rectify the situation, the Department insisted on a fresh filing, resulting in late fee charges. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement of filing the Bill of Entry by the next day of goods' arrival and emphasized that the proper officer's satisfaction for late fee imposition must be rational and free from arbitrariness. The Tribunal criticized the Assistant Commissioner for disregarding the initial filing and purging issue, leading to an unjust imposition of late fees. Issue 2: Procedural Fairness and Reasoned Orders The Tribunal noted the lack of procedural fairness in the Assistant Commissioner's non-speaking order imposing late fees without providing a reasoned order despite multiple requests from the Appellant. The failure to consider the initial Bill of Entry, filed within the specified time, raised concerns about arbitrariness in the decision-making process. The Tribunal criticized the absence of justification for rejecting the initial filing and highlighted the impossibility for the Appellant to obtain evidence of system errors controlled by the Department. The Tribunal also referenced a relevant judgment emphasizing the discretion to waive late fees in cases of purged Bill of Entries, which the Commissioner failed to consider. Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Applicability The Tribunal referred to a High Court judgment clarifying that the Customs Act and related regulations do not provide for purging of Bill of Entries. The judgment highlighted the need for judicious discretion in cases where a new Bill of Entry is filed due to purging, emphasizing that late fee charges should not apply in such situations. The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of late fees in this case was irregular and unsupported by legal provisions, causing unnecessary hardship to the Appellant. The Tribunal ordered the reversal of the late fee imposition and directed the Department to pay litigation costs to the Appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the late fee imposition and ordering a refund to the Appellant. The Department was directed to pay a minimum litigation cost to the Appellant, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness, rational decision-making, and adherence to legal precedents in customs matters.
|
