TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the case may be. In the present case also even though the importer had filed all the relevant particulars on 07.11.2017 itself, it was on account of the system related fault, the bill of entry got generated on 08.11.2017. The approach set out in the aforesaid Instruction No.12/2017-Customs dated 31.08.2017 deserves to be adopted in the present case also. There is a maxim ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit’. It means that nobody should suffer for the wrong done by a quasi-judicial body. The aforesaid instruction is also an analogous application of the same principle. In the law of contracts also, no party is expected to do an act impossible in itself. Since the Notification No.84 of 2017 was issued only on 08.11.2017, the writ petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as ₹ 22,91,886/-. For the petitioner, it is not peanuts but one causing substantial financial burden. Therefore, the petitioner wanted the respondent to re-assess the bill of entry by applying Notification No.50/17 dated 30.06.2017 and permit clearance of the goods for home consumption. Since the said request was not acted upon, the petitioner had to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner highlighted the fact that the goods are perishable in nature and that therefore the matter cannot brook any delay. 3.Considering the urgency of the matter, this Court directed the respondent to file their response. The respondent also duly filed the counter affidavit. 4.Heard Mr.G.Derrick Sam, learned counsel appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vohra v. Union of India), he would strongly contend that equitable considerations are out of place while deciding issues relating to fiscal levies. It may be that the import was done on 07.11.2017 and that the imported furnished the relevant particulars on the same date. But the fact remains that for whatever reason the bill of entry got generated only on 08.11.2017. Therefore, the notification that was in force on 08.11.2017 alone must be applied in this case. The standing counsel sought dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The question that arises for determination is what is the date on which the bill of entry in this case was presented by the petitioner under Section 46 of the Act. Section 46 of the Customs Act underwent an amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transition era, teething troubles are bound to be there. The Government will have to issue suitable directions to enable the citizens to tide over the same. The remedial and ameliorative measures ought to be put in place. That is why the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued Instruction No.12/2017-Custom dated 31.08.2017 clarifying that if importers have not been able to file bill of entry for clearance of imported goods within stipulated time period because of technical problems related to ICEGATE connectivity, server etc. the importer should not be penalised for delay happening due to any system related fault. The entire circular deserves to be extracted verbatim : Instruction No. 12/2017-Customs F.No.450/10/2017-Cus IV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above stated provisions when there are problems encountered due to instability of ICEGATE. Issue in brief: Many a times, importers have not been able to file Bill of Entry for clearance of imported goods within stipulated time period because of certain technical problems related to ICEGATE connectivity, server etc. It is also brought to notice of the Board that there are instances when, even after filing a Bill of Entry within the prescribed time period, it is subjected to payment of charges for late filing as its number is not generated within the free period, prescribed under section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.Board has examined the issue and accordingly following clarification is given. Board is of the view that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 itself, it was on account of the system related fault, the bill of entry got generated on 08.11.2017. The approach set out in the aforesaid Instruction No.12/2017-Customs dated 31.08.2017 deserves to be adopted in the present case also. There is a maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit . It means that nobody should suffer for the wrong done by a quasi-judicial body. The aforesaid instruction is also an analogous application of the same principle. In the law of contracts also, no party is expected to do an act impossible in itself. 11.In the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed the print out which indicates that on 07.11.2017 at about 11.32 hrs the details were fed but the status was shown as negative acknowledgment receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
