TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e end of next day of arrival of the goods at Mumbai Customs but it has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that on arrival of vessel, Bill of Entry filed prior to it did not get finalised through system with IGM inward entry. It is a common knowledge that for various technical reasons and system error or upon laps of time in rectifying the error shown in the ICEGATE system after submission Bill of Entry, it gets purged. This is unrelated to the issue on hand since compliance/non-compliance of Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be scrutinized for the purpose of confirmation of payment of late fee that was being imposed on the Appellant. Astonishing features of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so liable to compensate the Appellant by way of cost. Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 86523 of 2022 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/86192/2022 - Dated:- 14-12-2022 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri C.M. Sharma, Consultant for the Appellant Shri Ram Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Imposition of late fee of Rs.2,26,437/-, i.e. equivalent to duty of the imported goods, under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 for filing of Bill of Entry after the stipulated time and its confirmation by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva on 27.05.2022 vide above referred order is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva who also refused relief to the Appellant and denied to interfere in the order communicated vide the impugned letter dated 27.12.2019. Hence the appeal. 3. I have heard for a considerable time from both the sides on the issue and perused the written notes submitted subsequently by both the sides. The dispute concerning filing of previous Bill of Entry and its getting purged is not denied by the Respondent-Department nor by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order but as has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. C. M. Sharma, Bill of Entry was in fact filed by the end of next day of arrival of the goods at Mumbai Customs but it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, so specified and the proper officer is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for such delay the importer shall pay fees for late presentation of Bill. This being the dictate of law, gross violation of the same could be noticeable in the conduct of proper officer namely Assistant Commissioner, Group VA, NS-V, JNCH as he disregarded the filing of Bill of Entry that purged/cancelled subsequently in their system even after debit of required BCD and SWS and such purging out, which could be due to an errors committed by either side, has not been specifically attributed to the negligence/mistake of the Appellant. Furthermore, satisfaction of the proper officer about the reason for such delay in filing of Bill of Entry has to be a judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of them have not cited any reason as to why the Bill of Entry dated 25.09.2019 is not to be accepted as the Bill of Entry filed under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 except noting the submissions of Appellant that it got purged/erased in the system. More importantly, it is an indication of arbitrariness to say in the Order-in-Appeal at para 7 that Appellant had failed to provide any documentary evidence confirming any system related error due to which the delay in filing the Bill of Entry had taken place. This is something impossible and beyond the reach of the Appellant to get evidence from the computer system that is under the control of the Respondent-Department and operated by their Officials. Moreover, it is a blatantly false ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which contemplates purging of the Bill of Entry. 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 charges merely because an importer files a second Bill of Entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
