Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAIImposition of late filing fees - belated filing of Bills-of-Entry - Section 46 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Section 46 deals with entry of goods on importation and also prescribes the time limit for filing the same, apart from prescribing the consequence for failure to adhere to the time limit. The second proviso to Section 46 (3) deals with a situation where, the Bill-of-Entry is not presented within the time specified, which makes the importer liable for such charges for late presentation of the Bill. The above proviso also qualifies the late fees if the appropriate officer is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay. The Order-in-Original dated 08.11.2017 has nowhere questioned the bona fides of the importer/Customs Broker against whom the said order was passed since it is the first requirement of Section 46 read 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 - The impugned order referring to this Order-in-Original dated 08.11.2017, has also not questioned the bona fides of the appellant. It is clear from the impugned order as well as that of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no reason/question of ‘non-satisfaction’ as to the reasonable cause shown by the appellant. It is very difficult to accept as to how the Order-in-Original came to be passed against a Customs Broker just because it made a request - 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’. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|