Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Late filing charges on importer set aside; systemic ICEGATE error and COVID limitation exclusion; Section 17(5) Customs Act upheld

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT upheld the order of the Commr (Appeals) setting aside the late filing charges imposed on the importer. The respondent had filed four advance Bills of Entry on 01.12.2021 which did not appear in the ICEGATE system due to a systemic error; CESTAT held the respondent could not be held liable for consequences arising from such technical failure. It was further noted that any alleged delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, for which the limitation period stood excluded, and therefore could not be attributed to the respondent. CESTAT found no infirmity in the absence of a speaking order under S.17(5) of the Customs Act or in the reasoning of the Commr (Appeals). The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.....