AFL PRIVATE LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S .L. Peeran, J. In all these five appeals, a common question of law and facts are involved and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellants are all Console agents/freight forwarders of imported goods into India transported by air from various parts of the world into Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. They are all registered and approved by the Commissioner of Customs under Section 30 of Customs Act to act as Console agents under the said section. As per Section 30 of the Customs Act, the Console agent is enjoined upon to file Import General Manifest (IGM) before arrival of the air craft. During the period from 1 -8 -2004 to 31 -8 -2004, the said Console agents filed various IGMs after the arrival of the aircraft and thus it is alleged by the Revenue that they had contravened the provisions of the said section. Hence, they were issued with a Show Cause Notice calling upon them to explain as to why penalty, in terms of the said section, should not be imposed. The appellants explained that they were new to the system and the delay in filing the IGM occurred due to the reasons beyond their control. They also pointed out that the delay in filing the IGMs was due to frequent failure of Customs EDI System. They contended that the delay cannot be solely attributed to them as the departments system was also involved. They pleaded that there was no revenue loss to the Government nor there was injury to any person on account of their delay in filing the IGMs. They pointed out that it was due to procedural delays. However, their explanations have not been considered at all and the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to impose penalties @ Rs. 1,000/ - per IGM. In terms of the Commissioner (Appeals)s order, the total number of IGMs is as follows : -

(2.) THE short question that arises for consideration is regarding the justification to impose penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case and as to whether the said penalty of Rs. 1,000/ - on each number of IGM is justified.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel who argued on the basis of grounds made out in the appeal memo while the learned SDR defended the order and justified the imposition of penalty in the matter.