2022 (7) TMI 1200 - HC - Customs

Court rules in favor of company, deems late fees unwarranted for delayed filing of Bill of Entry

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Pune Versus JSW Steel Ltd.,

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Pune Versus JSW Steel Ltd., - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of late fees charged for delayed filing of Bill of Entry.2. Bona fide actions of the Respondent-Company regarding short-landed goods.3. Application of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Validity of the Appellate Authority and Tribunal's decisions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of Late Fees Charged for Delayed Filing of Bill of Entry:The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Pune, challenged the CESTAT's decision that the late fees charged in the adjudication order were unwarranted. The Respondent-Company, JSW Steel Ltd., and its subsidiary ARCL imported Coking Coal, which was short-landed at Marmagao Port and excess landed at Jaigad Port. The Respondent-Company filed a Bill of Entry for the excess cargo after amendments to the Import General Manifest (IGM) were approved by Customs Authorities. The EDI System calculated a late filing charge of Rs.33,45,000/-, which the Respondent-Company requested to waive off, arguing the delay was not their fault. The Customs Authorities rejected this request, attributing the delay to the Respondent-Company's actions.2. Bona Fide Actions of the Respondent-Company Regarding Short-Landed Goods:The Respondent-Company argued that the delay in filing the Bill of Entry was due to genuine and bona fide circumstances. They had filed the Bill of Entry for the full quantity at Marmagao Port within the prescribed time limit and paid the entire duty. The short-landed quantity was due to a discharge error by stevedores at Jaigad Port. The Respondent-Company took steps to amend the IGM and filed the Bill of Entry for the short-landed goods immediately after the amendments were approved. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Respondent-Company acted bona fide and should not be penalized with late fees.3. Application of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962:Section 46(3) of the Customs Act mandates that an Importer present a Bill of Entry before the end of the next day following the arrival of the vessel at a customs station. The second proviso allows for late presentation charges if there is no sufficient cause for delay. The Respondent-Company had filed the Bill of Entry for the entire quantity within the prescribed time and paid the duty, demonstrating their bona fides. The delay in filing the Bill of Entry for the short-landed goods was due to the need for IGM amendments, which were beyond their control.4. Validity of the Appellate Authority and Tribunal's Decisions:The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal both found that the Respondent-Company acted bona fide and that the late fees were unwarranted. The Appellate Authority noted that the Bill of Entry filed on 14th March, 2018, was a system requirement for clearance of short-landed goods and not a fresh Bill of Entry. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the Respondent-Company's efforts to comply with the law. The High Court agreed, observing that the satisfaction for sufficiency of cause is a subjective satisfaction that must be exercised judiciously. The Assessing Officer's decision to levy late fees was based on technicalities and lacked judicious application of mind.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the Appeal, finding no fault with the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal's decisions. The Respondent-Company demonstrated bona fides, and the late fees were deemed unwarranted. The Appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and was accordingly dismissed with no costs.