TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....05.2022 vide above referred order is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that imported goods namely Remote Control for TV Brand Onida arrived at Nhava Sheva under IGM No. 2235149 on dated 24.09.2019. Bill of Entry No. 5051519 was filed on the next day i.e. on 25.09.2019 through ICEGATE System maintained by the Respondent-Department and required fee in the form of BCD and SWS of Rs.66,846/- was debited through MEIS scrip. No challan got generated in the system for which after a couple of days Appellant tried to ascertain the reason and observed that Bill of Entry got purged before payment of duty through IGST. Accordingly, Appellant requested vide its letter dated 07.11.2019 and 22.11.2019 to the concerned Deputy Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in fact filed by the end of next day of arrival of the goods at Mumbai Customs but it has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that on arrival of vessel, Bill of Entry filed prior to it did not get finalised through system with IGM inward entry. It is a common knowledge that for various technical reasons and system error or upon laps of time in rectifying the error shown in the ICEGATE system after submission Bill of Entry, it gets purged. This is unrelated to the issue on hand since compliance/non-compliance of Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be scrutinized for the purpose of confirmation of payment of late fee that was being imposed on the Appellant. Bare text of Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proper officer about the reason for such delay in filing of Bill of Entry has to be a judicial/rational satisfaction which has to be manifestively free from arbitrariness or mala fide. It is surprising that even after admitting in writing on the request letter dated 07.11.2019 that retrieval of Bill of Entry is not possible and despite the fact that discretion was available with the said Assistant Commissioner not to charge late fee on sufficient ground. Further satisfaction of the proper officer being a judicial satisfaction has to be dependent on the facts which were admittedly tilted in favour of the Appellant. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has rightly pointed out that except communicating the decision of the proper officer name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent-Department and operated by their Officials. Moreover, it is a blatantly false statement noted in the Order-in-Appeal and highlighted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the Respondent-Department that prior Bill of Entry was filed and on arrival of the vessel the same did not get finalised through system with the IGM inward entry since documents available on record clearly indicated that Bill of Entry was filed on the next day of arrival of the vessel. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that they have cited the judgment of Lakshmi Dall Mill Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group-I), Customs House, Tuticorin reported in 2018 (360) ELT 307 (Mad.), that had not been considered by the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of imposing late fee charges 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." 6. Therefore, imposition of late fee itself and its confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) by erroneously holding that there was no dispute of the fact that Bill of Entry was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, was irregular and unsupported by any legal provision. It has also caused considerable hardship to the Appellant by burdening the Appellant with further unnecessary litigation and by burdening the Tribunal in showing scanty respect to the law of the land for which, in view of the decisi....