1992 (11) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of less charge demand notice issued by customs authorities.
2. Interpretation of service of notice on importer or clearing agent.
3. Burden of proof on the Department regarding communication of order.
4. Applicability of relevant provisions of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a dispute regarding the validity of a less charge demand notice issued by customs authorities to the importer. The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents had filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of imported cleaning compounds, and duty was paid. However, a less charge demand notice was issued later, which the authorities claimed was not served within the required period. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the demand was illegal due to delayed issuance. The Collector referred to previous judgments emphasizing the necessity of serving notice directly on the person chargeable with duty.

The primary issue addressed was the interpretation of service of notice on the importer or clearing agent. The appellants argued that serving the clearing agents should be deemed valid, while the respondents contended that such service after goods clearance is not legally acceptable. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and concluded that service on clearing agents post-clearance is not valid. The burden of proof regarding communication of the order was highlighted, emphasizing the Department's failure to prove timely issuance of the less charge demand notice.

The judgment also delved into the applicability of relevant provisions of the Customs Act. It was emphasized that the less charge demand must be issued within six months from the date of duty payment. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, citing lack of merit and agreeing with the Collector (Appeals) that the Department failed to establish timely issuance of the demand notice. The decision reaffirmed the principle that service on clearing agents after goods release is not a valid method of notice delivery, upholding the rights of importers under the Customs Act.