2021 (7) TMI 762 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns late fee charges, ruling in favor of appellant

M/s. Jaihind Traders Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

The Tribunal set aside the late fee charges imposed on the appellant for delay in filing the bill of entry, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal ... Levy of late fee charges - delay in filing the bill of entry - sufficient reason for delay in filing the bill of entry was shown or not - HELD THAT:- From the records, it is clear that the original importer could not clear the consignment and had to sell the goods to another person. Since necessary amendments have to be made in the shipping bill which has to be filed along with necessary documents by the new purchaser, the bill of entry could be filed only on 14.11.2018. This being the facts which have been properly established by document itself, the view taken by the authorities below that the reasons are not genuine / bonafide cannot sustain. Tribunal in various decisions have analyzed similar facts and have held that the late fee imposed are not warranted - reliance placed in the case of M/S. BLUELEAF TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE [2019 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and M/S. ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TUTICORIN [2019 (10) TMI 62 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Confirmation of demand of late fee charges for delay in filing the bill of entry.Analysis:The appellant contested the confirmation of late fee charges for delay in filing the bill of entry. The original importer, M/s. Al Fursan Trading Company, faced issues due to exchange rate fluctuations and subsequently sold the consignment to the appellant. Necessary amendments were required in the shipping bill, and the appellant filed the bill of entry on 14.11.2018. The department imposed late fee charges from the original filing date of 27.8.2018. The appellant argued that the delay was justified and bonafide, citing relevant Tribunal decisions. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the delay was due to genuine reasons and should be condoned as per Standing Order No. 1/2017. The appellant's explanations were not adequately considered by the authorities below.Analysis Continued:On the other hand, the respondent supported the findings of the impugned order, asserting that the delay was not bonafide. The authorities held that the late fee charges were correctly imposed. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined whether the appellant had provided sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the bill of entry. The Tribunal noted that the original importer's inability to clear the consignment and the subsequent sale to the appellant necessitated amendments, leading to the delayed filing on 14.11.2018. The Tribunal found that the reasons for delay were genuine and supported by documentary evidence. Citing previous Tribunal decisions with similar circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the late fee charges were unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment regarding the confirmation of late fee charges for delay in filing the bill of entry showcases the appellant's justifications, the respondent's arguments, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching the decision to set aside the late fee charges.