COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Vs. SHRIRAM RAYONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is in appeal against decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the respondent for contravention provisions of Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 and for contravention of Section 48 of Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) NO one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Learned SDR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that no penalty is imposable under Section 117. He submits that in this case to importer filed Bill of Entry after lapse of stipulated time limit of 30 days under Section 48 and without any request/permission for extension of filing Bill of Entry beyond the stipulated time limit.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned SDR. I find that Section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 provides that a Bill of Entry under sub -section (1) of Section 46 may be presented at any time after the delivery of the importer manifest or import report, as the case may be. In fact, the provisions of Section 46 would show that there is a provision under Section for filing Bill of Entry even before delivery of the import manifest or import report, but there is no time limit prescribed for filing bill of entry after the delivery of import manifest. The time limit prescribed under Section 48 for clearance of the goods within 30 days cannot be read into Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is for the importer to take care and ensure that goods are not sold when they have not been cleared within 30 days. Further Section 48 also requires the notice to be given to the importer before the goods are sold. Basically, the objective of the provision of Section 48 is to avoid congestion in the port and ensure faster clearance of the goods. Moreover, even if Bill of Entry is filed within 30 days, there can be a difficulty for clearance if the importer does not pay duty or there are disputes about the classification, valuation etc. This is the reason why Section requires the permission of the proper officer to be given before the custodian sells the goods. Since the Section 46 which relates to filing of Bill of Entry does not prescribe any time limit, the delay in filing of Bill of Entry cannot be a reason for imposition of penalty for contravention of provisions of Section 48. I find that the decision of the Tribunal in Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd. as reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 151 (Tribunal) cited by the learned SDR is not relevant to the present case since in that case it was held that penalty is imposable under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for minor contraventions of other provisions.