TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962. The practice of purging of Bill of Entry appears to be based on the practice adopted in various ports on account of the architecture of the ICEGATE. There is however no provision either under the Customs Act, 1962 or under the provisions of Regulation which contemplates purging of the Bill of Entry. In the facts of the case, the petitioner has filed a second Bill of Entry on 12.07.2021 and said the necessity for filing second Bill of Entry arose only on account of the fact that the earlier Bill of Entry dated 20.04.2021 got erased in the ICEGATE or the customs system. Therefore, the petitioner could not comply with the requirements regarding the query raised on 20.04.2021. It cannot be ignored that the entire worl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.A.K. Jayaraj For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The short point that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the second respondent is justified in demanding a sum of ₹ 8,25,000/- as late fee charges from the petitioner for the Bill of Entry No.4645330 dated 12.07.2021. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed an advance Bill of Entry on 20.04.2021. On the same day, the respondents had also raised few queries asking the petitioner to furnish details of clearance from the Legal Meteorological Department. It is the further case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urging the Bill of Entry either under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or under the Provisions of aforesaid Regulations referred to supra. He therefore submits that as a matter of expediency, the petitioner was constrained to file a second Bill of Entry on 12.07.2021 after the normality started to return. He submits that the entire country was under lock down during the period when the goods were imported and that even on the date when the second Bill of Entry was filed on 12.07.2021 normality was not fully restored. 6.He therefore submits that this was a fit case for granting waiver from payment of late fee charges on account of the second Bill of Entry for the same import which was covered by the earlier Bill of Entry dated 20.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ' 10.Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on few decisions of the Tribunal to persuade this Court for granting appropriate relief in this case. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court rendered in W.P.(MD).No.23333 of 2017 dated 09.01.2018 in the case of M/s.Lakshmi Dall Mill, Represented by its Proprietor Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group I). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the aforesaid order of the Madurai Bench of this Court referred to CBEC Circular/instructions dated 31.08.2017 referred to supra and granted relief to a importer who had filed a Bill of Entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 21,51,393/- to be paid on the Bill of Entry. He further submits that if at all, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and since there is an alternate remedy, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13.The learned counsel for the respondents submits these submissions were based on the written instructions and filing of counter be dispensed with. He further submits that the petitioner cannot take advantage of its own mistake by not regularizing the earlier Bill of Entry and file a second Bill of Entry and therefore it has to be construed that second Bill of Entry was a new Bill of Entry filed belatedly beyond the time prescribed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1961. 14.Heard learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l services were allowed to operate. This is a fit case where the second respondent ought to have exercised the discretion judiciously by granting waiver as this is a case where petitioner had not filed a fresh Bill of Entry for the first time but has filed a new Bill of Entry as the old Bill of Entry got purged and was erased in the ICEGATE. The provisions of the Customs Act and the Bill of Entry (Electronic Integrated Declaration and Paperless Processing) Regulations, 2018 does not contemplate purging of the bill of entry. In fact, the expression purging is neither found in the Act nor in the aforesaid Regulation. Therefore, question of imposing late fee chargers merely because an importer files a second Bill of Entry on account of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
