TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bars and in relation to these four consignments filed four Bills of Entry with relevant supporting documents through ICEGATE [3] portal on 05.07.2019. However, only one Bill of Entry number was generated corresponding to Job Code No. 626, but numbers for the three Bills of Entry with respect to Job Code Nos. 629, 630 and 631 were not generated. 4. The respondent, therefore, wrote a letter dated 08.07.2019 to the Commissioner of Customs (Import) for immediate processing of the three pending Bills of Entry and for release of the three consignments. This letter was followed by another letter dated 11.07.2019. The respondent also informed the Commissioner that it had received a communication from ICEGATE service manager that the three Bills of Entry could not be processed due to a technical glitch in their system and that the ICEGATE had requested the respondent to re-file the same. The respondent, therefore, pointed out that when there was a fault at the end of ICEGATE, it should not be asked to re- file the Bills of Entry. Subsequently, the respondent also received a response from the ICEGATE portal on 12.07.2019 stating that due to budget activity, the pending Bills of Entrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills of Entry were not generated on 05.07.2019 and were kept pending. The Importer wrote a letter date 08.07.2019 to the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) requesting for immediate release of the said 3 consignments. The Importer on an enquiry from ICEGATE understood that the Bills of Entry were not generated on 05.07.2019 due to some technical error and addressed another letter dated 11.07.2019 to the Commissioner (Imports) that the documents and Bills of Entry presented on 05.07.2019, being complete in all respects, ought to be generated, assessed and the consignments ought to be released on an immediate basis. 2.2 The Importer received an email on 12.07.2019 from ICEGATE portal stating that the Bills of Entry were not processed due to Budget activity on 05.07.2019 and the Importer was required to re-file the said Bills of Entry again. On 15.07.2019, the Importer addressed a letter before the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) stating that once admittedly the entire documentation filed on 05.07.20I9 was complete and the non-processing of the Bills of Entry was due to technical error at the end of ICEGATE, the Importer should not be put to financial prejudice. Accordingly, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntative placed reliance upon the following decision: (i) Union of India vs. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills [2020 (374) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.)]. 9. Shri Kishore Kunal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent made the following submissions:- (i) A bare perusal of the Appeal discloses that there is no dispute to the factual position that the four Bills of Entry with relevant documents were presented in the ICEGATE portal on 05.07.2019 and job numbers were created on the portal as an acknowledgment of such presentation. Once this factual position is undisputed in the Appeal, the four Bills of Entry have necessarily to be assessed as per the rate of duty existing as on the date of presentation i.e. on 05.07.2019; (ii) In terms of section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act], it is the date of presentation of the Bills of Entry which is the relevant date for the purpose of ascertaining and applying the rate of duty to be applied on the imported goods. In the facts of the present case, neither at any earlier stage of the present proceedings nor in the Appeal filed before this Tribunal, it has been stated by the Department that the Bills of Entry with suppor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; "ICEGATE" means the customs automated system of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs; (f) ******** (g) "supporting documents" means the documents in the electronic form or otherwise, which are relevant to the assessment of the imported goods under sections 17 and 46 of the Act." 13. Regulation 3 requires the authorised person to enter the electronic integrated declaration and the supporting documents on the Customs Automated System. Regulation 4(1) requires the authorised person to file the Bill of Entry before the end of the next day following the day on which the aircraft or vessel or vehicle carrying the goods arrives at a customs station. Regulation 4(2) provides that the Bill of Entry shall be deemed to have been filed and self-assessment completed when after entry of the electronic integrated declaration, a Bill of Entry number is generated by the Indian Customs Electronic Data Interchange System for the said declaration and the self- assessed copy of the Bill of Entry may be electronically transmitted to the authorised person. Regulation 3 and Regulation 4(1) and (2) are reproduced below: "3. The authorised person shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue with ICEGATE service manager. It received an e-mail from ICEGATE portal mentioning that the three Bills of Entry could not be generated on account of a technical error at its end and, therefore, asked the respondent to re- file the Bills of Entry; (iii) The respondent, thereafter wrote a letter dated 11.07.2019 to the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) mentioning that when the non-generation of numbers for the three Bills of Entry was on account of some technical glitch in the ICEGATE system, the respondent should not be asked to re-file the same. The respondent also received a letter dated 12.07.2019 from the ICEGATE service manager mentioning therein that due to budget activity on 05.07.2019, the files could not be processed after 5 pm and so the respondent should re-file the Bills of Entry; (iv) The respondent, thereafter submitted a letter dated 15.07.2019 to the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) pointing out that the direction to re-file the three Bills of Entry would not only be incorrect but would also cause severe financial prejudice to the respondent since the Basic Customs Duty had increased in the meantime w.e.f. 05.07.2019; and (v) Since no res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te data on 05.07.2019 on the ICEGATE portal for generation of the Bills of Entry numbers, but only one Bill of Entry number was generated on that date. The remaining three Bills of Entry numbers could not be generated due to some technical glitch at the end of ICEGATE portal and also because of the fact that the Bills of Entry could not be processed after 5 pm on 05.07.2019 due to budget activity. The respondent, therefore, re-filed the Bills of Entry and the Job Code Nos. 629, 630 and 631 were processed by the Department on 19.07.2019 and 20.07.2019 and three Bills of Entry numbers were generated. It is not the case of the Department, as set out in "Brief Facts of the Case" in the Memo of Appeal, that incomplete documents were submitted by the respondent on 05.07.2019 as a result of where three Bills of Entry numbers could not be generated on that date. 18. It is in the light of the aforesaid factual position that the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) need to be appreciated. The relevant portions of the findings are reproduced: "It is further noted that this office sought comments/ views of the jurisdictional Commissionerate on the Appeal Memo and additional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... presented on 05.07.2019 along with all the supporting documents and that non processing of the same at the end of ICEGATE due to their own system glitches cannot be made the basis for the Appellant to file the same again. However, no response was given and the Appellant had to submit the requisite data again on 19.07.2020 / 20.07.2020 leading to generate of bill of entry numbers. On that date and assessment at rates prevailing on that date which was higher than rate applicable on 05.07.2019. 5.4 I also note from the records that B.E. No. 4148112 dated 20.07.2019 correspond to Job no. 629 dated 05.07.2019, B.E. No. 4136846 dated 19.07.2019 correspond to Job no. 630 dated 05.07.2019 and B.E. No. 4154067 dated 20.07.2019 correspond to Job no. 631 dated 05.07.2019 as the MAWB, invoice numbers and IGM numbers correspond to each other." (emphasis supplied) 19. In view of the conclusions drawn above from the statements made by the appellant and the respondent, no fault can be found in the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent had presented the four Bills of Entry with the requisite data for generation of numbers for the four of Bills of Entry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23. The submission of the appellant is that the declaration submitted by the respondent on 05.07.2019 was not complete and hence, in view of the definition of 'Bill of Entry' under regulation 2 (1) (c) read with regulation 2 (1)(g) of the 2018 Regulation, there is no deemed completion as three Bills of Entry numbers were not generated on 05.07.2019. 24. As noticed above, this contention of the appellant that the supporting documents had not been filed by the importer on 05.07.2019 and were subsequently provided on 20.07.2019 has been found to be factually incorrect. The importer had submitted the four Bills of Entry with all the supporting documents on 05.07.2019 and it is only because of the fault of the Department that three Bills of Entry numbers could not be generated on that day. Once this presumption drawn by the Department is found not to be correct, the submission of the respondent that the Basic Customs Duty as applicable on 05.07.2019 was required to be paid by the appellant needs to accepted. 25. In this connection reference needs to be made to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Vijaya Industrial Products (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India [1995 (76) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the date of such presentation and not as on any subsequent or future date. The stipulation in Section 46 pertaining to the presentation of the Bill of Entry is confined to it being merely in the prescribed form and not necessarily with all and every one or the particulars and particularly complete in all respects and more so with accuracy of the information given. The mere fact that anyone information in the prescribed form is not furnished or any defective or incorrect information is furnishes, for any reason whatsoever, is no disentitling or disqualifying factor to outright reject or condemn the Bill of Entry presented otherwise in the prescribed form or to treat the same as one not presented on the actual date of its presentation as such. In this case, indisputably the importer's Code number alone has not been given and I am of the view that the lapse or omission in this regard will not in any manner detract the Bill of Entry presented, the credibility of it being the Bill of Entry presented in the prescribed form or the fact that it has been for all purposes of the Act presented on 30-6-1994. The fact that the information relating to the Importer's Code number was furnished o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of presentation would decide the rate of duty. The Supreme Court held that it is the time of presentation which would be relevant and the increased rate of duty would not be applicable if the document was presented before the Notification with regard to the increased rate of duty was uploaded on the e-Gazette. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below: "2. A terrorist attack took place at Pulwama on 14 February, 2019. On 16 February, 2019, the Union Government issued a notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The notification introduced a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200%. The precise time at which the notification was uploaded on the e-Gazette was 20:46:58 hours Customs authorities at the land customs station at Attari sought to enforce the enhanced rate of duty on Importers who had already presented bills of entry for home consumption before the enhanced rate was notified, in the e- Gazette. Their action led to a challenge before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The consignments of import covered a diverse range of goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n an electronic format, on the customs automated system in the manner which is prescribed. The Regulations of 2018 stipulate the manner in which the bill of entry has to be presented. The deeming fiction in Regulation 4(2) specifies when presentation of the bill of entry and 'self- assessment' are complete. The rate of duty stands crystallized under Section 15()(a) once the deeming fiction under Regulation 4(2) comes into existence. The regulations have to be read together with the statutory provisions contained in Section 15(l)(a) and Section 46, while determining the rate of duty." 50. In the above context, it is to be noted that the rate of customs duty is determined on the date on which the bill of entry for home consumption is presented (Section 15). The presentation of the bill of entry has to be made electronically (Section 46 read with the 2018 Regulations). The presentation is required to be made on the customs automated system. The provisions in the Customs Act for the electronic presentation of the bill of entry for home consumption and for self-assessment have to be read in the context of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act which recognizes "the dispa....