1994 (12) TMI 161 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authorization of the Customs House Agent (CHA) to receive the show cause notice.
2. Timeliness of the receipt of the show cause notice by the appellants.
3. Validity of the show cause notice signed by an officer other than the proper officer.
4. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to reassess the Bill of Entry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authorization of the Customs House Agent (CHA) to Receive the Show Cause Notice:
The appellants contended that the CHA was not authorized to receive the show cause notice on their behalf. However, the Tribunal found that the CHA had received the notice on 30-7-1992 and had made an endorsement indicating that one copy would be sent to the importer. The appellants had not raised the issue of improper service on the CHA initially and had taken the CHA along with them for the hearing before the Assistant Collector. This led to the presumption that the CHA was authorized to receive the notice and contest the case on behalf of the appellants. The Tribunal referenced the case of Almelo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, which supported the validity of service on the CHA under Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that the service of the show cause notice on the CHA was valid and binding on the importer.

2. Timeliness of the Receipt of the Show Cause Notice by the Appellants:
The appellants claimed that they received the show cause notice after the expiry of six months, making the demands time-barred. The Tribunal, however, noted that the notice was served on the CHA on 30-7-1992, well within the statutory limit. The appellants failed to provide substantial evidence, such as postal records or an inward register, to prove the late receipt of the notice. The Tribunal concluded that the notice must have been received by the appellants within the prescribed time frame, rejecting the time-bar argument.

3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Signed by an Officer Other Than the Proper Officer:
The appellants argued that the show cause notice was invalid as it was not signed by the proper officer. The Tribunal examined the case records and found that the Assistant Collector had authorized his officer to issue the show cause notice and had initialed the draft notice. The Tribunal held that the notice was issued under the proper officer's authority and was therefore valid. The Tribunal distinguished this case from others cited by the appellants, such as Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd., which dealt with different statutory provisions.

4. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to Reassess the Bill of Entry:
The appellants contended that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to reassess the Bill of Entry after the goods had been cleared. The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court rulings, including Jai Shree Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, which established that an approved classification list could be reopened under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, analogous to Section 28 of the Customs Act, for recovery of short levy. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument, affirming the Assistant Collector's jurisdiction to issue the reassessment notice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the show cause notice was validly served on the CHA, the demands were not time-barred, the notice was properly authorized, and the Assistant Collector had the jurisdiction to reassess the Bill of Entry. The appeal was rejected in its entirety.