2024 (6) TMI 197 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Waiver of Fine for Late Bill of Entry Filing Due to Technical Glitches and Valid Delay Reasons.

Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/s Century Led Limited

The CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, which had set aside the fine for late filing of the Bill of Entry. The ... Stay petition against the Order-in-Appeal setting aside fine for late filing of Bill of Entry - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the Appellant had filed the Bills of Entry alongwith all the documents on time through ICEGATE site but the same was not getting uploaded and was reflected due to technical glitches. The Appellant also has brought to the notice of the Revenue official about the difficulty faced by them in this regard. Subsequently, the Bill of Entry was filed with the delay and system has automatically imposed a fine on the Appellant. Since the Appellant was in urgent requirement of the imported goods, they opted to pay the fine and cleared goods. After this, they filed an Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through documentary evidence produced by the Respondent showing that the Respondents have made all efforts to file the Bill of Entry along with relevant documents on time but were prevented to file online due to the technical glitches in the ICEGATE site. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded these facts and has relied on the case law of M/S. BLUELEAF TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE [2019 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI], wherein the Tribunal has held 'Appellant is clearly not the first importer, there is request for amendment in IGM on record, allowed by the Revenue after collecting requisite fees and these are clearly post-import developments. The subsequent developments, as observed supra, were perhaps necessitated because of the goods being perishable. Clearly, no mala fide is found in the above developments by the Revenue and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with ‘sufficient cause’.' It is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone through the factual details and the documentary evidence produced by the Respondent herein and has correctly relied on the cited Tribunal decisions. Therefore, there are no reason to interfere with the considered decision taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues: Appeal against setting aside fine for late filing of Bill of Entry.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA addressed the appeal filed by the Department challenging the Order-in-Appeal that had set aside the fine imposed for late filing of the Bill of Entry. The Appellant had filed the Bill of Entry on time through ICEGATE site, but due to technical glitches, it was not getting uploaded, leading to a delay in filing. The system automatically imposed a fine, which the Appellant paid to clear the goods urgently. The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and considered the documentary evidence showing the technical issues faced by the Appellant. The Commissioner relied on the case law related to the delayed filing of Bill of Entry and the authority of the proper officer to waive off charges for delays if satisfied with the reasons provided. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the proper officer's satisfaction regarding the cause for delay before imposing late fees, highlighting the bona fides of the importer. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case where the late fee was set aside, supporting the decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals).The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately considered the factual details and documentary evidence presented by the Respondent, in line with the Tribunal decisions cited. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal also disposed of the Stay Petition in this matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of the proper officer's satisfaction in imposing late fees for delayed filing of the Bill of Entry and emphasized the need to consider the reasons provided by the importer before penalizing them.