2024 (6) TMI 199 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Waiver of Late Fees, Emphasizes Importance of Proper Officer's Satisfaction with Delay Reasons.

Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/s Uma Poly Solutions Private Limited

The CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the Revenue's Appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to set aside the fine for late filing of the Bill of ... 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’.' Reliance placed on the case law of M/S. ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TUTICORIN [2019 (10) TMI 62 - CESTAT CHENNAI], wherein on similar issue, the Tribunal has set aside the late fee imposed on the importer. 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:1. Appeal against the setting aside of a fine for late filing of Bill of Entry by the Commissioner (Appeals).Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata heard the Department's Stay Petition and Appeal challenging the setting aside of a fine for late filing of the Bill of Entry by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant faced technical glitches while filing the Bill of Entry through ICEGATE site, despite timely submission of all documents. The system automatically imposed a fine due to the delay, which the Appellant paid to clear the goods urgently. The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and considered the documentary evidence showing the Appellant's efforts to file on time, but hindered by technical issues. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced the case law of Blueleaf Trading Company, highlighting the authority of the proper officer to waive charges for delayed filing upon satisfaction with the reasons provided. The Tribunal emphasized that the charge of late fee is subject to the non-satisfaction of the proper officer regarding the cause for delay.The Tribunal also noted the Appellant's communications with Customs officials explaining the delay, which were not deemed insufficient or improper, indicating the Appellant's bona fides. The Tribunal emphasized that the Act only allows charging late fees from the importer per se and not from subsequent parties like the Appellant. Relying on the case law of M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., where a similar late fee was set aside, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on factual details and cited Tribunal decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue and disposed of the Stay Petition.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the fine for late filing of the Bill of Entry, emphasizing the importance of the proper officer's satisfaction with the reasons for delay before imposing charges. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the procedural aspects and legal provisions governing late fees, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant based on the evidence presented and relevant case law.