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 High Court upheld the decisions of the Appellate Authority and Tribunal, ruling in favor of the Respondent-Company. The late fees charged for delayed ... Legality of the the late fees charged in the adjudication order - delay in filing the Bill of Entry - applicability of time limitation for filing of bills of entry as per Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Section 46(3) of the Act that an Importer is to present a Bill of Entry for home consumption or for warehousing in the prescribed form before the end of the next day following the day on which, the vessel carrying the goods arrives at a customs station at which such goods are to be cleared. There is a proviso which allows a period of thirty days for presentation of an advance bill of entry. The second proviso is the one, applicable here, which provides that where the Bill of Entry is not presented within the time, and the proper officer is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for such delay, the Importer shall pay such charges for late presentation of the Bill of Entry as may be prescribed. In the present case, it is observed that the Respondent-Company had filed the Bill of Entry No.9375854 for the entire quantity on 20th April, 2017 within the prescribed time limit and as such, there was no objection to the same. It had also paid the entire duty for 98450 metric tons of Goonyella C Coking Coal, even though, 1,341 metric tons had not landed in Marmagao but had landed in Jaigad and as soon as the amendments to the IGM were approved by the Appellant on 14th March, 2018, again the Respondent-Company filed the Bill of Entry on the very same day in respect of 1,341 metric tons - The second proviso clearly invests a discretion on the Authorities while considering levy of late payment charges as imposed on the Respondent-Company. The satisfaction for sufficiency of cause is a subjective satisfaction which has to be exercised judiciously. The Assessing Officer has based on technicalities and without any judicious application of mind, levied the late payment charges which have been rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Respondent-Company has not acted bona fide. The entire confusion was due to the short landing of 1,341 metric tons of Goonyella C Coking Coal at Marmagao though full duty in respect of which has been paid by the Respondent-Company and even after it was found out that 1,341 metric tons was landed in Jaigad, the Respondent-Company has taken efforts to get the IGM amended and no sooner the the IGM was amended, the Bill of Entry in respect thereof was filed on the same day within time. This shows the Respondent Company’s eagerness to be on the right side of the law. We are satisfied that the Respondent-Company has shown its bona fides by all these actions. There are no fault with the order of the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal - the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed. 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.