TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1557
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....37,500 MTs of coal covered under Import General Manifest (IGM) No. 2378069 dated 27.05.2024, the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 3756862 dated 31.05.2024. The said Bill of Entry was duly assessed by the Customs authorities and the manifested quantity was cleared upon payment of the applicable customs duty, without any dispute as regards the quantity, classification or valuation of the imported goods. 2.1. Upon clearance of the manifested quantity, it was noticed that an excess quantity of 696.896 MTs of PCI Coal still remained lying within the Port area. In order to regularize the clearance of such excess cargo, the appellant, in terms of Public Notice No. 05/2023 dated 19.05.2023 and the Standard Operating Procedure issued thereunder by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar, obtained the requisite permission from the proper officer and, after joint stack survey, filed Supplementary Bill of Entry No. 7290533 dated 17.12.2024 for clearance of the said excess quantity. 2.2. The above Supplementary Bill of Entry was duly assessed to customs duty. However, while so assessing the same, the Customs Electronic Data Interchange (ICEGATE) system automatically imposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort General Manifest (IGM) had been carried out, thereby indicating that the excess cargo did not form part of the original consignment, is factually incorrect. It is pointed out that the appellant has placed the amended IGM on record, which clearly establishes that the excess quantity formed part of the original import itself. Consequently, it was contended that the findings recorded in the impugned order are unsustainable and the ratio laid down in Kai International (supra) and Agarwal Coal Corporation Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue appearing before me reiterates the findings in the impugned order and argues that no valid documentary evidence could be placed on record by the appellant to substantiate their claim that the excess cargo could be considered as part of the same transaction consignment. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 7. I find that the short issue which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the levy of late filing fee under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the Supplementary Bill of Entry filed by the appellant fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the said goods, during the Draft Survey, it was found that there was some excess quantity of coal in the port. Subsequently, the appellant had requested for amendment of the IGM and amendment of the earlier Bills of Entry filed by them. The appellant were also willing to pay the Customs duty for the excess coal found in the port area. However, the Proper Officer has disallowed the appellant's request for amendment of the Bills of Entry. Subsequent thereto, the appellant has filed the Supplementary Bills of Entry bearing Nos. 121907 on 27.09.2023 and 8085274 on 30.09.2023. 8. From the facts and evidence available on record, I find that the delay in filing the Supplementary Bills of Entry in question is not on account of an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 imposed in a routine/mechanical manner. 10. 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 office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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'. 8. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside. 9. The appeals are allowed." 10.1. I find that the ratio of the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 11. In view of the foregoing, I hold that the late fees imposed on the appellant in the present cases are not sustainable. Consequently, I set aside the same." 10.1. The aforesaid legal position has also been reaffirmed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in 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....