TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant. The Ld. A R appearing for the Revenue submits that the issue on hand in these appeals already stands decided by this Bench vide Final Order Nos.75440-75441/2026 dated 25.03.2026. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals have been taken up for hearing with the consent of the Ld. A R. 2. These appeals have been filed by M/s Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt Ltd. Yashwant Colony, Indore [hereinafter referred to as the "appellant"] against the imposition of late fee on them under Regulation 4(3) of the Bill of Entry (Electronic Integrated Declaration) Regulations, 2018 read with Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, which has been upheld vide the impugned Orders in Appeal. The details pertaining to the present appeals ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... port. The appellant requested for amendment of the IGM and the connected Bills of Entry and came forward to pay the Customs duty for the excess amounts of coal available. 4. However, the Proper Officer has not allowed the amendment of the Bills of Entry already filed. Therefore, the appellant filed Supplementary Bills of Entry as per (9) of the above Table. Since these Bills of Entry were filed beyond the prescribed time-limit provided under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant was charged late fee in respect of the said Supplementary Bills of Entry filed by them, which was communicated by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Paradeep Customs Division. The appeals filed by the appellant against such imposition of late fee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Procedure. 5.3. In view of the above, the appellant prays for setting aside the late fees, as imposed on the appellant in these cases and for allowing their appeals, with consequential relief. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submits that there was a delay in filing the Supplementary Bills of Entry by the appellant; accordingly, the system has automatically calculated the delay arising on account of such late filing. Hence, he submits that late fee is payable in these cases. Therefore, he justifies the imposition of late fees on the appellant. 7. Perused the appeal papers the records of the case. 8. We find that the appellant has imported consignments of st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bill of entry under sub-section (1) before the end of the next day following the day (excluding holidays) on which the aircraft or vessel or vehicle carrying the goods arrives at a customs station at which such goods are to be cleared for home consumption or warehousing: ..... Provided further that where the bill of entry is not presented within the time so specified and the proper officer is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for such delay, the importer shall pay such charges for late presentation of the bill of entry as may be prescribed. [Emphasis supplied] 9.1. From a reading of the above proviso to Section 46(3) reproduced above, it is clear that the Proper Officer has the authority to waive the late ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be imposed in a routine/mechanical manner. 11. A similar issue relating to penalty charges for late filing of Bills of Entry has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Blueleaf Trading Company v. Commissioner of G.S.T. & C.Ex., Tiruchirapalli [Final Order Nos. 40772-40780 of 2019 dated 08.05.2019 in Customs Appeal No. 42670 of 2018 & ors. - CESTAT, Chennai]. The relevant observations in the aforesaid decision are reproduced below: - "5.2 Considering the difficulties faced by the importers which had resulted in delayed presentation of Bill/s-of-Entry, the CBEC issued Instructions from time to time. One of such Instructions, Instruction No. 12/2017-Customs dated 31.08.2017 had instructed the officers jurisdictional Additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the date of agreement made between the shipper and the appellant, which was nobody's case and not even as per law. As discussed above, Section 46 ibid authorizes the proper officer to collect late fees subject to his 'non-satisfaction' of the cause shown and there is no via media. The appellant admittedly is not the first importer, but a saviour who came forward at a later stage. The Act only contemplates charging of late fee from the importer per se. It is clear from the impugned order as well as that of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no reason/question of 'nonsatisfaction' as to the reasonable cause shown by the appellant. In the above factual background therefore, it is very difficult to accept as to ....