TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent is justified in demanding a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/- as late fee charges from the petitioner for the Bill of Entry No.4645330 dated 12.07.2021. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed an advance Bill of Entry on 20.04.2021. On the same day, the respondents had also raised few queries asking the petitioner to furnish details of clearance from the Legal Meteorological Department. It is the further case of the petitioner that before petitioner could respond to the query dated 20.04.2021, the country went in for the second lock down on account of second wave of Covid-19. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a importer from Banglore, Karnataka and Banglore was reeling under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tarted to return. He submits that the entire country was under lock down during the period when the goods were imported and that even on the date when the second Bill of Entry was filed on 12.07.2021 normality was not fully restored. 6.He therefore submits that this was a fit case for granting waiver from payment of late fee charges on account of the second Bill of Entry for the same import which was covered by the earlier Bill of Entry dated 20.04.2021 vide bill of entry No.3634245. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the Instruction No.12/2017-Customs dated 31.08.2017 wherein the Central Board of Indirect Taxes has advised the jurisdictional Additional/Joint commissioner of Customs to judiciously exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Madurai Bench of this Court rendered in W.P.(MD).No.23333 of 2017 dated 09.01.2018 in the case of M/s.Lakshmi Dall Mill, Represented by its Proprietor Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group I). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the aforesaid order of the Madurai Bench of this Court referred to CBEC Circular/instructions dated 31.08.2017 referred to supra and granted relief to a importer who had filed a Bill of Entry at a later point of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner also added that even in cases where fresh Bill of Entry was filed by subsequent buyers, the respondents have the practice of granting waiver in the exercise of power under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these submissions were based on the written instructions and filing of counter be dispensed with. He further submits that the petitioner cannot take advantage of its own mistake by not regularizing the earlier Bill of Entry and file a second Bill of Entry and therefore it has to be construed that second Bill of Entry was a new Bill of Entry filed belatedly beyond the time prescribed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1961. 14.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the documents filed in support of present writ petition including the Bill of Entry filed on 20.04.2021 and the subsequent Bill of Entry on 12.07.2021. I have also perused the provisions of the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Entry got purged and was erased in the ICEGATE. The provisions of the Customs Act and the Bill of Entry (Electronic Integrated Declaration and Paperless Processing) Regulations, 2018 does not contemplate purging of the bill of entry. In fact, the expression purging is neither found in the Act nor in the aforesaid Regulation. Therefore, question of imposing late fee chargers merely because an importer files a second Bill of Entry on account of the factors mentioned above would not justify the levy of late fee charges on the petitioner. Further it is noticed that in the impugned communication dated 12.07.2021 an amount of Rs. 8,25,000/- was being demanded as a fine amount and not a late fee in terms of Regulation 4(3) of the Bill of Entry (El....