2022 (10) TMI 291 - AT - Customs

Refund of late filing fees upheld where system EDI error and vessel detention caused delay and remaining delay waived

TRIVENI SHIPBREAKERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR (PREV.)

CESTAT allowed the appeal and upheld refund of late fee charges. The tribunal found the bill of entry had been presented but not uploaded due to an Indian ... Refund of late fees charges - bills of entry presented, but due to Indian Customs EDI system error it could not be uploaded - whether there was delay in filing bill of entry or not - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute in the fact that the appellant has presented the Bill of entry but due to Indian Customs EDI system error it could not be uploaded. Secondly the vessel was arrested by the order of the Hon’ble High Court and on release of the vessel by the High Court the appellant filed bill of entry - the period from initial presenting of bill of entry up to the subsequent filing of bill of entry should be reduced from the period prescribed for filing bill of entry, if this be so there is no delay in filing the bill of entry. Moreover if at all there is delay the Learned Joint Commissioner has waived the late fee charges and consequential to the said order the Assistant Commissioner has sanctioned the refund of late fee. There are no error in sanctioning refund by the Assistant Commissioner - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Entitlement to refund of late fees charges due to system error in Indian Custom EDI System.2. Grant of waiver by Joint Commissioner and subsequent refund claim before Assistant Commissioner.3. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the department's appeal.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case was whether the appellant was entitled to a refund of late fees charges paid due to a system error in the Indian Custom EDI System. The appellant faced difficulties in uploading the Bill of Entry electronically with GST provisions because of the system error. Additionally, the vessel was arrested by the High Court, further delaying the filing of the bill of entry. The appellant contended that these circumstances were beyond their control, justifying the waiver of late fees. The Joint Commissioner granted the waiver, and the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund accordingly.2. The second issue involved the grant of waiver by the Joint Commissioner and the subsequent refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the bill of entry was not their fault, given the system error and the vessel's arrest. The Joint Commissioner's decision to waive the late fee charges was crucial in this context. The Assistant Commissioner, following the waiver order, approved the refund of late fees. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not dispute the waiver granted by the Joint Commissioner, strengthening the appellant's case for the refund.3. The final issue revolved around the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the department's appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, concluded that the appellant's situation warranted the reduction of the filing period for the bill of entry due to the system error and vessel arrest. The Tribunal found no error in the Assistant Commissioner's decision to sanction the refund, especially since the revenue did not contest the waiver of late fees. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appellant's appeal, affirming the entitlement to the refund of late fees charges.