TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018. Thus after obtaining the order of cancellation of earlier Bill of Entry, the new Bill of Entry has been filed within three days - From the facts it cannot be said that the appellants herein has committed any act or omission in causing delay in filing the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal in the case of Blueleaf Trading Company [ 2019 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] had occasion to consider a similar situation wherein the late fee imposed was set aside. The late fee imposed is not legal or proper - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 42103 of 2018 - Final Order No. 41155/2019 - Dated:- 30-9-2019 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant herein. Against such order, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the late fee imposed by the original authority. Hence this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj appeared and argued the matter. He adverted to the facts of the case and submitted that there was no delay occurred due to any act or omission on the part of the appellant herein. The situation arose that the first consignee could not clear the goods and the shipper had to identify another purchaser for clearing the goods. This was the main reason which resulted in the delay in filing the Bill of Entry even though the goods had arrived on 11.8.2017. Before filing the Bill of Entry by the new purchaser, it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein is an Indian company of the overseas supplier, it is countered by the ld. counsel that both the organisations are separate entities and therefore it cannot be a ground to impose late fee. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 40772 to 40780/2019 dated 8.5.2019 in M/s.Blueleaf Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs , Trichy. It is argued by him that in a similar situation, the Tribunal has set aside the late fee. 4. The ld. AR Ms. K. Komathi appeared on behalf of the department. She submitted that there has been willful delay on the part of the appellant to file the Bill of Entry for which the late fee has been imposed. She adverted to sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the new consignee on 12.1.2018. Thus after obtaining the order of cancellation of earlier Bill of Entry, the new Bill of Entry has been filed within three days. From the facts it cannot be said that the appellants herein has committed any act or omission in causing delay in filing the Bill of Entry. 6.1 The argument of the ld. AR that the appellant could have obtained document earlier because the appellant / new purchaser is an Indian unit of the overseas supplier also does not hold much water. Both the units are different entities. The department does not have a case of any malafideness in the import of the goods. Further, the standing order issued by the department gives clear direction as to when the late fee can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
