Tribunal grants waiver of penal charges for late filing of Bills-of-Entry

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals for waiver of penal charges for late filing of Bills-of-Entry by the Customs Broker. The Tribunal found that the appellant provided sufficient explanations for the delay, and the authorities did not question their bona fides. The appellant, not being the first importer, was considered a savior who came forward later due to financial issues faced by the original consignees. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for waiver under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, and pronounced the decision on 08.05.2019.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal for waiver of penal charges for belated filing of Bills-of-Entry.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Customs Broker, appealed for waiver of penal charges for late filing of Bills-of-Entry, which were rejected by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. The case involved three containers of Raw Cashew Nuts consigned to a new buyer due to financial issues faced by the original consignees. The appellant filed the Bills-of-Entry belatedly and requested waiver of penal charges as per Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The main point of dispute was the eligibility of the appellant for waiver of late filing fees under Section 46 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The second proviso to Section 46 (3) specifies that if the proper officer is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay, the importer shall pay late charges. However, the CBEC issued Instructions allowing judicious exercise of power by officers and even suggested waiving late charges in certain cases. Subsequent regulations also empowered the proper officer to waive charges if satisfied with the reasons for delay.

The Order-in-Original did not question the importer's or Customs Broker's bona fides, as required by Section 46. The appellant provided explanations for the delay to various Customs authorities, which were not deemed insufficient or improper. The impugned order and the Commissioner (Appeals) decision were found unsustainable as they did not question the sufficiency of the cause shown by the appellant. The appellant, not being the first importer, was considered a savior who came forward later, and the subsequent developments were necessitated due to perishable goods.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeals for waiver of penal charges. The decision was pronounced in open court on 08.05.2019.

---