9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Time-barred demand for differential duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Service of demand notice on the Clearing Agent as valid service on the importer. 3. Liability of the Clearing Agent to pay differential duty even after goods have been cleared. Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the contention that the demand for differential duty is time-barred as the notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was not served on the appellants within six months from the date of payment of duty. The consultant for the Appellants argued that the service of notice on the Clearing Agent does not constitute service on the importer. Citing relevant case law, the consultant argued that the demand is time-barred, and the appellants are not liable to pay the differential duty. 2. The second issue concerns whether the service of the demand notice on the Clearing Agent can be considered as valid service on the importer for the purpose of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The Customs House served the notice on the Clearing Agent within the six-month period, and the notice was addressed to the appellants. The Tribunal held that service on the agent is valid under Section 153 of the Act, and the notice can be deemed served on the appellants if served on their agent within the time limit. The absence of evidence proving that the Clearing Agent was not authorized to receive the notice on behalf of the appellants weakened their argument. 3. The third issue delves into the liability of the Clearing Agent to pay the differential duty even after the goods have been cleared. Section 147(3) of the Act authorizes the agent to act on behalf of the principal, and recovery of short levy from the agent is permissible under certain circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that differential duty can only arise after goods have been cleared, and recovery from the agent is subject to the Assistant Collector's satisfaction that the duty cannot be recovered from the importer. Case law and regulations further support the position that the Customs House Agent has an obligation to ensure compliance by the importer, making the service of notice on the agent valid in this context. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, upholding the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the demand for differential duty. The judgment emphasized the legal provisions, case law, and regulations governing the service of notices, the liability of the Clearing Agent, and the timelines for demanding short levies under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
