9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y them in this regard. Subsequently, the Bill of Entry was filed with the delay and system has automatically imposed a fine on the Appellant. Since the Appellant was in urgent requirement of the imported goods, they opted to pay the fine and cleared goods. After this, they filed an Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through documentary evidence produced by the Respondent showing that the Respondents have made all efforts to file the Bill of Entry along with relevant documents on time but were prevented to file online due to the technical glitches in the ICEGATE site. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded these facts and has relied on the case law of M/S. BLUELEAF TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMISSION ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposal with the help of the Learned AR. 3. On going through the facts of the case, it is seen that the Appellant had filed the Bills of Entry alongwith all the documents on time through ICEGATE site but the same was not getting uploaded and was reflected due to technical glitches. The Appellant also has brought to the notice of the Revenue official about the difficulty faced by them in this regard. Subsequently, the Bill of Entry was filed with the delay and system has automatically imposed a fine on the Appellant. Since the Appellant was in urgent requirement of the imported goods, they opted to pay the fine and cleared goods. After this, they filed an Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with proviso to Sub-Clause (3) that the charge of late fee was subject to non-satisfaction of the proper officer as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the cause for delay, which discernibly is not questioned. 7.2 Further, the appellant has also furnished a number of communications, filed with the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Deputy Commissioner of Customs, all at Customs House, Tuticorin, dating prior to that of passing of the Order-in-Original, explaining the cause for delay in filing the belated Bills-of-Entry. The explanation/cause shown in these letters have not at all been rejected as insufficient, wrong or improper, which only reflects the bona fides of the appellant. 7.3 The impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue was otherwise satisfied with sufficient cause . 8. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside. 4. He has also relied on the case law of M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs Tuticorin reported in 2019 (10) TMI 62-CESTAT Chennai, wherein on similar issue, the Tribunal has set aside the late fee imposed on the importer. 5. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through the factual details and the documentary evidence produced by the Respondent herein and has correctly relied on the cited Tribunal decisions. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the considered decision taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
