2009 (10) TMI 777 - AT - Customs

CESTAT AHMEDABAD Upholds Decision on Customs Act Penalty Appeal

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Versus SHRIRAM RAYONS

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD rejected the appeal challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000 ... - Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed under u/s 117 and u/s 48 of Customs Act, 1962.The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD heard an appeal against the penalty imposed on the respondent for contravention of provisions of Section 117 and Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the respondent. The appeal was made by the Revenue challenging this decision.Issue 1: Penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962The learned SDR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that no penalty is imposable under Section 117. It was highlighted that the importer had filed the Bill of Entry after the stipulated time limit of 30 days under Section 48, without any request or permission for an extension. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the presentation of a Bill of Entry at any time after the delivery of the importer manifest or import report. It was noted that there is no specific time limit prescribed for filing the bill of entry after the delivery of the import manifest. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay in filing the Bill of Entry cannot be a reason for the imposition of a penalty for contravention of provisions of Section 48. Reference was made to a previous decision of the Tribunal to clarify the relevance of penalties under Section 117 for minor contraventions of other provisions, which was deemed not applicable in the present case.Issue 2: Contravention of Section 48 of Customs Act, 1962The Tribunal delved into the provisions of Section 48, which require goods to be cleared within 30 days and necessitate notice to the importer before the goods are sold. It was emphasized that the objective of Section 48 is to prevent congestion in the port and ensure prompt clearance of goods. Even if the Bill of Entry is filed within 30 days, challenges may arise if the importer does not pay duty or disputes arise regarding classification or valuation. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of obtaining permission from the proper officer before the custodian sells the goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the Bill of Entry should not lead to the imposition of a penalty under Section 48.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the delay in filing the Bill of Entry should not result in penalties under Section 117 or Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions and previous tribunal rulings.