Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 763 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty u/s 117 of CA - non-filing of EGM/shipping bills as required under section 41 of the Customs Act, 1962 - problem of EGM errors which hamper IGST refund processing - HELD THAT:- Section 41 thus cast duty upon the person in-charge of conveyance/carrier to file the EGM in relation to the goods which are exported. In case of any omission or error in filing documents, the law provides for opportunity to correct the same. 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 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 non-filing of shipping bill is a condonable lapse. In Circular No.1/2019-Cus., F.No.450/119/2017-Cus-IV, dated 02.01.2019, the department has put forward resolutions to solve the problem of EGM errors which hamper IGST refund processing. In the present case also, in Para 11 of O-in-O, it is seen stated that the IGST refund claim for these impugned shipping bills could not be processed and delivered to the exporter in time. 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 penalty imposed is unwarranted - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|