2019 (5) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were unloaded. The appellant vide letter dated 3.7.2017 (inadvertently mentioned as 3.8.2017 in order-in-original) requested for amendment in the EDI IGM No. 2163079 dated 28.042.107 in respect of BL No. TDBSMUR006 dated 4.4.2017, as the said BL was not available in EDI IGM due to technical error in the system for which they also submitted documents such as copy of BL and letter of cosignee. The department was of the view that due to amendment in the IGM Appellant made themselves liable for penalty as per the provision of sub-section (1) of Section30 of Customs Act, 1962 as clarified under Board Circular No. 14 of 2017 dated 11.04.2017. The adjudicating authority has imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- which was upheld by the Commissioner,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed but the application submitted by the appellant was for supplementary/ additional entry for the excess landed cargo. The adjudicating and appellate authority have wrongly construed the application as amendment in IGM that the appellants application ought to have been considered under Section 30 (3) of Customs Act, 1962. Since, there is no allegation of fraud or fraudulent intention in submission of request for supplementary entry in IGM, therefore, the penalty was not imposable. They relied upon the judgment of apex court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. 1978 (ELT) J159. 3. Sh. T. K. Sikdar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. Heard Ld. AR and per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nifest or the import report or any part thereof, is not delivered to the proper officer within the time specified in this sub-section and if the proper officer is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for such delay, the person-in-charge or any other person referred to in this sub-section, who caused such delay, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees." 5. On going through the above section 30(1) read with Clause (iii), I find that the penalty can be imposed only if there is delay in delivery in submission of IGM to the proper officer, however in the present case, there is no delivery of submission in IGM. As per Clause (iii) of Sec. 30(1) which provides that if the proper officer is satisfied with the imp....