Valid service on importer requires authority to receive the order; CHA clerk's receipt did not bar delay condonation.

Service of an adjudication order on a Custom House Agent's clerk was not valid service on the importer after clearance of the goods, because the record did not show any express or implied authority for the CHA or its clerk to receive the order on the appellants' behalf under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal treated the appellants' assertion that they learned of the order only when a copy was supplied in March 2003 as unrebutted, and held that the delay in filing the appeals was sufficiently explained on the facts. The delay-condonation applications were allowed and the appeals were directed to be registered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the impugned order on the clerk of the Custom House Agent constituted valid service on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

Issue (i): Whether service of the impugned order on the clerk of the Custom House Agent constituted valid service on the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits service on the person concerned or his agent, while Section 147(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 deems an authorised agent to act for the principal for the purposes of the Act. The scope of a Custom House Agent, however, is governed by the Custom House Agents Licence Regulations, 1984, under which the CHA functions as an agent for customs business relating to import or export clearance. Once the goods were cleared and the duty paid, the CHA's role in the matter came to an end. The record did not establish any express or implied authority enabling the CHA or its clerk to receive the order on behalf of the appellants after clearance. The reliance on a statement said to have been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not accepted as supporting material in the delay-condonation proceeding.

Conclusion: Service on the CHA's clerk was not valid service on the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

Analysis: The appellants consistently asserted that they first acquired knowledge of the order only when a copy was made available to them in March 2003. That assertion was not rebutted by any credible material. Since the service on the CHA's clerk was not valid service on the appellants, and since the respondent did not produce acceptable evidence to displace the appellants' version, the delay stood explained on the facts found by the Tribunal. On those facts, the appeals were treated as having been filed within limitation from the date of actual knowledge.

Conclusion: The appellants had shown sufficient cause and the delay was liable to be condoned.

Final Conclusion: The delay-condonation applications were allowed and the appeals were directed to be registered, leaving the appellants without the bar of limitation on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of an adjudication order on a Custom House Agent or its clerk is not valid service on the importer after clearance of the goods unless the agent's authority to receive the order on the principal's behalf is established; unverified material cannot displace a sworn factual assertion in a delay-condonation matter.

---