9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery of any duty from the agent under the proviso to Section 147(3). In fact, in the present case, on 9-10-1986, such notice could not have been served on the agent because on 9-10-1986, there was nothing which would lead the Assistant Collector of Customs to come to the conclusion that the duty could not be recovered from the importer. Even a notice for recovery of duty had not been served on the importer on 9-10-1986. Notice has been served on the importer only later, on 14-10-1986, when such service of the notice was barred by limitation. We have not been shown any reason why the notice could not be served on the importer within the period of six months prescribed under Section 28. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, the proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or charged or which has been so short-levied or part paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; ..................... 3. The period of limitation for service of notice, therefore, when duty has been short-levied, is six months. The notice on the clearing agent was served on the last day before expiry of limitation while the respondent itself was served with the notice after the expiry of the period of limitation. 4. The Tribunal has held that the demand contained in the said notice is time barred and hence cannot be recovered. The appellant, however, contends that since the notice on the clearing agent of the respondent was served on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds and made liable for the payment of duty. In the present case no notice is addressed to the clearing agent making him liable for the short-levied duty. The notice is directed only on the respondent. 6. Under Section 28, notice has to be served on the person chargeable with duty . The person chargeable with duty in the case of imports is the importer. If the clearing agent of the importer is sought to be made liable as person chargeable with duty in the circumstances set out in Section 147(3) read with proviso, the notice must be addressed to the clearing agent and must set out that he is being made liable under the proviso to Section 147(3). 7. We do not find that in the present case, any notice has been served on the clearing agen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. The notice must, therefore, be served on the owner/importer. A service on the clearing agent of the owner/importer long after the clearing agent has ceased to deal with the goods in question under the Customs Act, cannot be treated as valid service of notice on the owner/importer. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon Section 229 of the Contract Act under which any notice given to or information obtained by the agent, provided it be given or obtained in the course of the business transacted by him for the principal, shall, as between the principal and third parties, have the same legal consequences as if it had been given to or obtained by the principal. A contract between the importer and his clearing agent, however, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
