9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the export have been filed including the shipping bills. Only after such verification, the let export order or out of charge is issued. If LEO was issued without EGM being filed, it would imply that the proper officer has endorsed the fact of non-filing of EGM/shipping bill, which may be due to oversight on his part. In any case, there is no allegation of fraud or wilful suppression of documents. So also, there is no allegation in respect of the nature and quantity of the goods exported - Moreover, the appellant has stated that during the relevant period there was no facility to know whether the documents have been correctly uploaded. Later, the department has improved their data-base by including such facility. In such circumstances, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O/2019-SEA 68483/2019 11.04.2019 5835436, dated 03.05.2017 02 C/50/II/352/O/2019-SEA 68482/2019 11.04.2019 5837202, dated 03.05.2017 03 C/50/II/353/O/2019-SEA 68481/2019 11.04.2019 5757034, Dated 29.04.2017 04 C/50/II/354/O/2019-SEA 68480/2019 11.04.2019 4697500, Dated 13.03.2017 05 C/50/II/355/O/2019-SEA 68478/2019 11.04.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under section 117 of Customs Act for contravening section 41 of the Customs Act,1962. After adjudication, the original authority imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lakh against each shipping bill. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against such order and the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to ₹ 30,000/- against each shipping bill. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Venugopalan, M.P., Manager [Port/Terminal Operations] of the appellant-Company appeared and argued the matter. It was submitted by him that these exports have taken place in 2017. According to him more than 600 shipping bills were filed by them for various vessels a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Authorised Representative for the Revenue Ms. T. Usha Devi appeared on behalf of the department. She reiterated the findings in the impugned order. She submitted that it is the responsibility of the carrier to deliver to the proper officer, the EGM before departure of the conveyance. As such, there is clear omission on the part of the appellant to file the EGM and, therefore, penalties imposed are legal and proper. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The penalties in the above case have been imposed for non-filing of EGM/shipping bills as required under section 41 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 41 reads as under:- Delivery of export manifest or export report.- (1) The person-in-charge of a conveyance carrying export goods shall, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills with respect to many vessels and, therefore, an omission might have occurred in the present case. Had it been pointed out, at that time, the same would have been rectified by the appellant. All these shipping bills are of various dates between 01.02.2017 to 25.09.2017. However, the department has issued the show-cause notices much later only after a lapse of two years in 2019. Thus, there is much delay in initiating proceedings against the lapse for reasons best known to the department only. 8. Be that as it may, it has to be seen that the proper officer of the Customs has to first verify whether the goods have reached the port. So also, the proper officer has to verify whether the documents regarding the export have been filed inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as under:- Board expects its jurisdictional officers to take all necessary steps to ensure that all EGMs of cargo-related to past cases are filed before 31st January, 2019. As a measure of facilitation, penal provisions may not be invoked for EGMs filled till 31st January, 2019. However, continued non-compliance beyond 1st February,2019 may be dealt strictly by taking recourse to penal provisions in accordance with the law. 10. From the above, it can be seen that only for continued non-compliance beyond 01.02.2019, the penalty is required to be imposed. In the present case, on receiving notice from department, the appellant has immediately rectified the defect. There is no allegation of continued non-compliance. The learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
