2021 (1) TMI 767 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Overturns Decision: Original Authority's Rs. 20,000 Penalty Reinstated; Rs. 4,00,000 Penalty Deemed Unfair.

M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Versus Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar

M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Versus Commr. of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar - 2021 (376) E.L.T. 730 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:Penalty imposition under Regulation 5 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011 for delay in submission of import documents.Analysis:The case involved M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd., which imported coal through Dhamra Port in Odisha on a high sea sale basis. Due to the nature of the purchase, the import documents like commercial invoice, bill of lading, etc., could not be filed initially, leading to provisional assessment of Bills of Entry under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant executed a bond with a bank guarantee as required by the Regulations. Over a period of 3 years, 35 Bills of Entry were filed and provisionally assessed. The Department issued a show cause notice proposing a penalty under Regulation 5 of the Regulations for not submitting all documents within the specified time frame.In response, the appellant admitted slight delays in document submission and requested condonation of the delay. By the time of adjudication, most documents were submitted, and only 8 Bills of Entry remained pending finalization. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of &8377; 20,000, which the appellant paid without challenge. However, the Department appealed, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) enhancing the penalty to &8377; 4,00,000 (&8377; 50,000 per remaining Bill of Entry). The appellant contested this decision before the Tribunal.The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified as there was no revenue implication, and the delays were procedural in nature. They highlighted that the department did not allege deliberate delay or malafide intentions. The appellant also emphasized that they sought condonation for the delay and submitted documents as soon as they were procured. They cited precedents where penalties were not imposed for procedural lapses.After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the delays were procedural, with no revenue impact, and no evidence of deliberate delay or malafide intent. The adjudicating authority's decision to impose a nominal penalty of &8377; 20,000 was considered fair, given the circumstances. The Tribunal referenced a precedent where penalties were deemed unnecessary in cases of delay without revenue implications. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstating the Original Authority's decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the procedural nature of the delays, the absence of revenue implications, and the lack of evidence supporting the enhanced penalty. The decision underscored the importance of fair and proportionate penalties in cases of procedural lapses without deliberate delays or revenue impact.