2024 (6) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner (Appeals). 2. No one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Since the matter is in a short compass, I have taken up the Appeal itself for disposal with the help of the Learned AR. 3. On going through the facts of the case, it is seen that the Appellant had filed the Bills of Entry alongwith all the documents on time through ICEGATE site but the same was not getting uploaded and was reflected due to technical glitches. The Appellant also has brought to the notice of the Revenue official about the difficulty faced by them in this regard. Subsequently, the Bill of Entry was filed with the delay and system has automatically imposed a fine on the Appellant. Since the Appellant was in urgent requirement of the imported goods, they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -2017 has nowhere questioned the bona fides of the importer/Customs Broker against whom the said order was passed since it is the first requirement of Section 46 read with proviso to Sub-Clause (3) that the charge of late fee was subject to non-satisfaction of the proper officer as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the cause for delay, which discernibly is not questioned. 7.2 Further, the appellant has also furnished a number of communications, filed with the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Deputy Commissioner of Customs, all at Customs House, Tuticorin, dating prior to that of passing of the Order-in-Original, explaining the cause for delay in filing the belated Bills-of-Entry. The explanation/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aps necessitated because of the goods being perishable. Clearly, no mala fide is found in the above developments by the Revenue and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with 'sufficient cause'. 8. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside. 4. He has also relied on the case law of M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs Tuticorin reported in 2019 (10) TMI 62-CESTAT Chennai, wherein on similar issue, the Tribunal has set aside the late fee imposed on the importer. 5. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through the factual details and the documentary evidence produced by the Respondent herein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X