Custom
TRT-2025-
Bombay High Court
Date:-26-07-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- 0
Order date – 26 July 2022
Facts –
- This appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Pune, against order No.A/86867/2019 dated 17/10/2019 passed by CESTAT, Mumbai holding that the late fees charged in the adjudication order is unwarranted.
- The Respondent JSW Steel Ltd., and its subsidiary imported a total 1,10,000 metric tons Coking Coal from M/s. JSW International Pty Ltd., Singapore by the same vessel MV CAPE IOANNA. An Import General Manifest (IGM No.2161880) was filed on 6th April, 2017 but 1,341 metric tons was found short at Marmagao Port but were found to be landed in Jaigad on 14th March, 2018 as soon as the amendments to the IGM were approved by the Appellant.
- The Customs Authorities vide communication dated 5th April, 2018 rejected the request of the Respondent-Company to be allowed to file a Bill of Entry for a differential quantity and that the said cargo may be allowed clearance.
Issue –
- Whether late fees charges will be applicable on the Importer in case of delay in filing of Bill of Entry for import of goods?
Order –
- The Court observed that the vessel discharged 98,450 metric tons at Marmagao Port and the same vessel discharged 1,341 metric tons at Jaigad while the duty was paid for the former port. The respondent requested for the required amendments to the IGM without any delay.
- As per section 46(3) of the Act that an Importer is to present a Bill of Entry for home consumption or for warehousing in the prescribed form before the end of the next day following the day on which, the vessel carrying the goods arrives at a customs station at which such goods are to be cleared. There is a proviso which allows a period of thirty days for presentation of an advance bill of entry. The second proviso is the one, applicable here, which provides that where the Bill of Entry is not presented within the time, and the proper officer is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for such delay, the Importer shall pay such charges for late presentation of the Bill of Entry as may be prescribed.
- The Court observed that the Respondent-Company had filed the Bill of Entry for the entire quantity on 20th April, 2017 within the prescribed time limit and as such, there was no objection to the same. It had also paid the entire duty for 98450 metric tons of Goonyella C Coking Coal, even though, 1,341 metric tons had not landed in Marmagao but had landed in Jaigad and as soon as the amendments to the IGM were approved by the Appellant on 14th March, 2018, again the Respondent-Company filed the Bill of Entry on the very same day in respect of 1,341 metric tons.
- Further, observed that the Assessing Officer has based on technicalities and without any judicious application of mind, levied the late payment charges and held that the court is satisfied that the Respondent-Company has shown its bona fides by all these actions.
- Therefore, upheld the order by appellate authority holding late fee imposed on respondent as unwarranted.
