CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order,...

CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the PIMS registration timeline is directory rather than mandatory. The Tribunal concluded the delayed upload of the PIMS certificate (after the five-day cut-off but prior to cargo clearance) constituted a procedural lapse, not a substantive breach warranting confiscation or penalty that would deprive the appellant of goods. Applying established principle that procedural timelines framed as permissive do not automatically attract forfeiture, CESTAT found the appellant's explanation of late receipt of shipping documents justified and that compliance before clearance satisfied the object of the notification; consequential order of confiscation was therefore quashed.