2021 (3) TMI 423 - AT - Customs

Seeking waiver of penal charges for late filing of Bill-of-Entry - HELD THAT - Identical issue decided 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 . Penal charges for late filing of Bill-of-Entry is to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal for waiver of penal charges for late filing of Bill-of-Entry.

Analysis:
1. Late Filing of Bill-of-Entry: The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal for not waiving penal charges due to the late filing of the Bill-of-Entry. The vessel carrying goods arrived, and the appellant, as a new consignee, informed the Department promptly about the situation and initiated the necessary processes for clearance. The appellant requested a waiver of penal charges, which was denied by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal.

2. Legal Precedents: The appellant's counsel cited precedents where the CESTAT had ruled in favor of deleting late fees in similar cases, highlighting the decisions in cases of M/s. Blueleaf Trading Company and M/s. ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. The counsel argued that the appellant's situation aligned with the rulings of the CESTAT in these cases, emphasizing that the appellant was not the first importer but a subsequent consignee who stepped in due to unforeseen circumstances.

3. Observations and Decision: After considering the arguments from both sides, the Member (Judicial) referred to the previous decisions of the CESTAT and noted that the impugned order was unsustainable. The Member emphasized that the appellant's actions were justified, given the circumstances, and there was no reason to impose penal charges for the late filing of the Bill-of-Entry. The Member set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential reliefs as per the law.

4. Conclusion: The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, providing relief to the appellant in line with the legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the factual background and the actions taken by the appellant in determining the applicability of penal charges for late filings, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant's appeal.