2017 (12) TMI 243 - AT - Customs

Failure to file the Bill of Entry - Board circular No.15/2005-Cus. dated 11.3.2005 - whether there was any fault in the computer system or not? - Held that - We are not provided information by revenue as to whether the computer system was working on the date of approach for ICEGATE system of submission of Bill of Entry - The IGM copy is also not before us - all the three appeals should go back to the learned adjudicating authority who shall examine whether there was any fault of ICEGATE system and day to day steps taken by appellant to prove its bona fides of presentation of Bill of Entry before 21.8.2006 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty based on the date of arrival of goods and filing of Bill of Entry.
2. Compliance with circular on filing Bill of Entry through ICEGATE system.
3. Allegation of taking advantage of circular to avoid duty.
4. Determination of fault in ICEGATE system and steps taken by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the anti-dumping duty was wrongly imposed as the goods arrived before the duty notification date. They emphasized the importance of verifying the date of arrival from the IGM and investigating why the ICEGATE system did not accept their input for Bill of Entry filing before the duty notification date.

2. The revenue contended that the appellants were using the circular as an excuse to evade duty, stating that in one case, the input for Bill of Entry was accepted before the duty notification date. The revenue argued that the date of Bill of Entry presentation determines duty liability and that filing a hard copy was the appellant's responsibility if facing issues with the electronic system.

3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the lack of information on the functionality of the ICEGATE system on the relevant date and the absence of the IGM copy. The Tribunal directed the case back to the adjudicating authority to examine the ICEGATE system's fault, the steps taken by the appellant, and the arrival date of goods to determine if the duty levy was justified. The authority was instructed to allow the appellants to inspect customs records for their defense without delay tactics.

4. The Tribunal set a deadline for re-adjudication, stressing a fair hearing for the appellants and a just decision based on the facts presented. The authority was required to follow due process and issue an appropriate order by the specified date.