TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed of by this common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, holding IEC Code No. 0204026032/9, had originally filed six Bills of Entry bearing Nos. 6193105 dated 18.10.2024, 4214416 dated 27.06.2024, 6406512 dated 29.10.2024, 6770934 dated 20.11.2024, 6427406 dated 30.10.2024 and 3618203 dated 23.05.2024, for clearance of 2,88,206 MTs of Steam Coal (Non-Coking) of South African origin. Upon clearance of the manifested quantity covered under the respective Bills of Entry, it was noticed that certain quantity of the imported cargo still remained lying within the Port area in excess of the quantity originally manifested. In order to clear such excess cargo, the appellant, in terms of Public Notice No. 05/2023 dated 19.05.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar, filed six Supplementary Bills of Entry bearing Nos. Nos. 9551700 dated 17.04.2025, 9551675, 9551668, 9551688, 9551633 and 9551722, all dated 17.04.2025, for clearing the excess quantity, weighing 15346.118 MT. 3. The Supplementary Bills of Entry were duly assessed to customs duty. However, the Customs Electronic Data Interchange (ICEGATE) system simultaneously generated late....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the levy of late filing fee under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is wholly unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was contended that the excess quantity of coal arose solely on account of the peculiar nature of bulk cargo, including variations in moisture content and allied factors, resulting in excess quantity remaining at the Port after clearance of the manifested cargo. It was submitted that the Supplementary Bills of Entry were filed only in accordance with the prescribed procedure for clearance of such excess cargo and that there was neither any deliberate delay nor any mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. In support of the above contentions, reliance was placed upon the decisions of this Tribunal in M/s. Kai International Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar [Final Order Nos. 7544075441 of 2026 dated 25.03.2026 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75944 & 75945 of 2025 - CESTAT, Kolkata] and M/s. Agarwal Coal Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Bhubaneswar [Final Order Nos. 75694-75699 of 2026 dated 16.06.2026 in Customs Appeal No. 76044 of 2024 & ors. - CESTAT, Kolkata]. 5.1. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factual position: - 8.2. The aforesaid documents unmistakably demonstrate that the Import General Manifests stood amended in accordance with law. The finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) at paragraph 5.7 of the impugned order, therefore, proceeds on an erroneous factual premise and reflects a clear non-consideration of the material available on record. The distinction sought to be drawn from M/s. Kai International (supra) is, therefore, wholly misconceived and cannot be sustained. 9. The aforesaid factual premise having been found to be erroneous, I agree with the submission of the appellant that the issue is squarely covered in principle by the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Kai International Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar [Final Order Nos. 75440-75441 of 2026 dated 25.03.2026 in Customs Appeal Nos. 75944 & 75945 of 2025 - CESTAT, Kolkata] wherein it was held as under: "7. I find that the appellant has imported consignments of steam coal and filed the original Bills of Entry Nos. 121907 dated 27.09.2023 and 8085274 dated 30.09.2023 for clearance of the same within the stipulated time. However, after clearance of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Therefore, I find that it is a fit case for waiver of late fee. 9. It is relevant to refer to the guidelines envisaged by the Board in the Circular No. 14/2017Customs dated 11.04.2017. The relevant portion of the said Circular reads as under: - "2. In the Circular No. 13/2005-Customs, dated 11.3.2005, CBEC had categorised the amendments carried out in the IGMs as Major and Minor respectively. Further in the amending circular No. 44/2005-Customs, dated 24-11-2005, it was provided that the need for adjudication will arise only in cases of major amendment involving fraudulent intention or substantial revenue implication. It was the view of the CBEC that the penal action is not initiated mechanically in all cases of IGM amendment and that due consideration may be given to the circumstances of amendment." 9.1. Reference is also made to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 19.05.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar Commissionerate on delivery of excess dry bulk cargo, wherein it is mentioned that the levy of applicable fine/penalty shall be applicable as 'deemed fit' by the Jurisdictional Officer. The same should not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 46 ibid authorizes the proper officer to collect late fees subject to his 'nonsatisfaction' 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 'non-satisfaction' as to the reasonable cause shown by the appellant. In the above factual background therefore, it is very difficult to accept as to how the Order-in-Original came to be passed against a Customs Broker just because it made a request. Appellant is clearly not the first importer, there is request for amendment in IGM on record, allowed by the Revenue after collecting requisite fees and these are clearly post-import developments. The subsequent developments, as observed supra, were perhaps necessitated because of the goods being perishable. Clearly, no mala fide is found in the above developments by the Revenue and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with 'sufficient cause'. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the part of the appellant. Under such circumstances, considering the bona fides of the appellant, the imposition of late fee in the present cases is found to be unwarranted. Therefore, I find that it is a fit case for waiver of late fee. 10. It is relevant to refer to the guidelines envisaged by the Board in the Circular No. 14/2017-Customs dated 11.04.2017. The relevant portion of the said Circular reads as under: .... 10.1. Reference is also made to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 19.05.2023 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar Commissionerate on delivery of excess dry bulk cargo, wherein it is mentioned that the levy of applicable fine/penalty shall be applicable as 'deemed fit' by the Jurisdictional Officer. The same should not be imposed in a routine/mechanical manner. . . . 13. We also observe that this Bench in the case of Kai International Pvt Ltd Vs CC (Prev), Odisha vide Final Order No.75440-75441/2026 dated 25.03.2026, on identical matter, has set aside. the late fee charged on the importers. ... 16. As a result, we set aside the impugned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....U SARANI KOLKATA-700001 IND I/We declare that the particulars given herein are true and correct. Signature of Shipping Linc/Steamer Agent Appeal No. C/75613/2026 Indian Customs EDI System - Imports V1.5 PARADEEP PORT CUSTOM HOUSE PARADEEP ORISSA 754142 ( INPRT Final Print IGM-SEA IGM NUMBER 2391866 IGM DATE : 29/10/2024 Line No 11 Subline No 0 BL Number DAN387A BL Date 14/10/2024 HBL Number HBL Date Port Shipment ZARCB Destination Port : INPRTI Nature of Cargo DB Item Type OT Cargo Movement LC Dest. Code Total Package 1 Package Type BLK Gross Weight 4472.761 - Unit MTS Gross Volume Unit MLO Code Carrier Code Bond No : Mode of Transhipment IMCO Code ZZZ UNO Code ZZZZZ Marks EXCESS CARGO Goods Desc STEAM COAL IN BULK Importter's Name & Address : Consignee's Name & Address : SARAOGI UDYOG PVT LTD BASU TO ORDER 21 HEMANTA SARANI CENTR POINT. 2ND FLOOR SUITE NO 212 KOLKATA-700001, INDIA I/We declare that the particulars given herein are true and correct. Signature of Shipping Line/Steamer Agent Appeal No. C/75614/2026 Indian Customs EDI System - Imports V1.5 PARADEEP PORT CUSTOM HOUS....