Case: The Principal Commissioner of Customs Pune Commissionerate Vs. JSW Steel Ltd

1962 which is quoted as under: 46. Entry of goods on importation (1) The importer of any goods, other than goods intended for transit or transhipment, shall make entry thereof by presenting electronically on the customs automated system to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in such form and manner as may be prescribed. PROVIDED that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, in cases where it is not feasible to make entry by presenting electronically on the customs automated system, allow an entry to be presented in any other manner: PROVIDED FURTHER that if the importer makes and subscribes to a declaration before the proper officer, to the effect that he is unable for want of full information to furnish all the particulars of the goods required under this sub-section, the proper officer may, pending the production of such information, permit him, previous to the entry thereof (a) to examine the goods in the presence of an officer of customs, or (b) to deposit the goods in a public warehouse appointed under section 57 without warehousing the same. (2) Save as otherwise permitted by the proper officer, a bill of entry shall include all the goods mentioned in the bill of lading or other receipt given by the carrier to the consignor. (3) The importer shall present the bill of entry under subsection (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 that a bill of entry may be presented at any time not exceeding thirty days prior to the expected arrival of the aircraft or vessel or vehicle by which the goods have been shipped for importation into India: 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. (4) The importer while presenting a bill of entry shall make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of such bill of entry and shall, in support of such declaration, produce to the proper officer the invoice, if any, and such other documents relating to the imported goods as may be prescribed. (4A) The importer who presents a bill of entry shall ensure the following, namely:- (a) the accuracy and completeness of the information given therein; (b) the authenticity and validity of any document supporting it; and (c) compliance with the restriction or prohibition, if any, relating to the goods under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force. (5) If the proper officer is satisfied that the interests of revenue are not prejudicially affected and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit substitution of a bill of entry for home consumption for a bill of entry for warehousing or vice versa. (Emphasis supplied) 13. We observe from Section 46(3) of the Act that an Importer is to present a Bill of Entry for home consumption or for warehousing in the prescribed form before the end of the next day following the day on which, the vessel carrying the goods arrives at a customs station at which such goods are to be cleared. There is a proviso which allows a period of thirty days for presentation of an advance bill of entry. The second proviso is the one we are concerned with which provides that where the Bill of Entry is not presented within the time, 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. 14. In the present case, we observe that the Respondent-Company had filed the Bill of Entry No.9375854 for the entire quantity on 20th April, 2017 within the prescribed time limit and as such, there was no objection to the same. It had also paid the entire duty for 98450 metric tons of Goonyella C Coking Coal, even though, 1,341 metric tons had not landed in Marmagao but had landed in Jaigad and as soon as the amendments to the IGM were approved by the Appellant on 14th March, 2018, again the Respondent-Company filed the Bill of Entry on the very same day in respect of 1,341 metric tons. The Commissioner of Customs in its order which has been upheld by the Tribunal has observed that the Respondent-Company has demonstrated its bona fides and we agree with the same. The second proviso clearly invests a discretion on the Authorities while considering levy of late payment charges as imposed on the Respondent-Company. The satisfaction for sufficiency of cause is a subjective satisfaction which has to be exercised judiciously. The Assessing Officer has based on technicalities and without any judicious application of mind, levied the late payment charges which have been rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Respondent-Company has not acted bona fide. The entire confusion was due to the short landing of 1,341 metric tons of Goonyella C Coking Coal at Marmagao though full duty in respect of which has been paid by the Respondent-Company and even after it was found out that 1,341 metric tons was landed in Jaigad, the RespondentCompany has taken efforts to get the IGM amended and no sooner the the IGM was amended, the Bill of Entry in respect thereof was filed on the same day within time. This shows the Respondent Companys eagerness to be on the right side of the law. We are satisfied that the Respondent-Company has shown its bona fides by all these actions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. The facts are undisputed. The vessel MV CAPE IOANNA arrived at Marmagao Port and Bill of Entry No.9375854 dated 20th April, 2017 for 98,450 metric tons in respect of Goonyella Coking Coal was filed at Marmagao Port by the Respondent-Company and the same was also assessed provisionally for the entire quantity and allowed clearance on payment of duty of the said goods although, 1,341 metric tons at Jaigad Port discharged by the same vessel remained uncleared though the entire duty had been paid at Marmagao Port. It is also undisputed that after getting the knowledge, the Respondent-Company requested for the required amendments to the IGM which was finally carried out by the Customs Authorities on 14th March, 2018 after which, the Bill of Entry for 1,341 metric tons was filed on 14th March, 2018 itself undisputedly without any delay.13. We observe from Section 46(3) of the Act that an Importer is to present a Bill of Entry for home consumption or for warehousing in the prescribed form before the end of the next day following the day on which, the vessel carrying the goods arrives at a customs station at which such goods are to be cleared. There is a proviso which allows a period of thirty days for presentation of an advance bill of entry. The second proviso is the one we are concerned with which provides that where the Bill of Entry is not presented within the time, 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.14. In the present case, we observe that the Respondent-Company had filed the Bill of Entry No.9375854 for the entire quantity on 20th April, 2017 within the prescribed time limit and as such, there was no objection to the same. It had also paid the entire duty for 98450 metric tons of Goonyella C Coking Coal, even though, 1,341 metric tons had not landed in Marmagao but had landed in Jaigad and as soon as the amendments to the IGM were approved by the Appellant on 14th March, 2018, again the Respondent-Company filed the Bill of Entry on the very same day in respect of 1,341 metric tons. The Commissioner of Customs in its order which has been upheld by the Tribunal has observed that the Respondent-Company has demonstrated its bona fides and we agree with the same. The second proviso clearly invests a discretion on the Authorities while considering levy of late payment charges as imposed on the Respondent-Company. The satisfaction for sufficiency of cause is a subjective satisfaction which has to be exercised judiciously. The Assessing Officer has based on technicalities and without any judicious application of mind, levied the late payment charges which have been rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Respondent-Company has not acted bona fide. The entire confusion was due to the short landing of 1,341 metric tons of Goonyella C Coking Coal at Marmagao though full duty in respect of which has been paid by the Respondent-Company and even after it was found out that 1,341 metric tons was landed in Jaigad, the RespondentCompany has taken efforts to get the IGM amended and no sooner the the IGM was amended, the Bill of Entry in respect thereof was filed on the same day within time. This shows the Respondent Companys eagerness to be on the right side of the law. We are satisfied that the Respondent-Company has shown its bona fides by all these actions.