Valid service through a clearing agent under customs law prevents a demand from becoming time-barred.

Service of a customs demand notice on a clearing agent constituted valid service on the importer where the notice was addressed to the importer and reached the agent within the limitation period under the Customs Act, 1962. Section 153 permits service on the intended person or his agent, and the scheme of Section 147(3), together with the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, supported treatment of the clearing agent as a valid receiving channel on the facts proved. In the absence of documentary proof that the agent lacked authority to receive notice, the demand was not time-barred and the confirmation of differential duty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice for differential customs duty served on the clearing agent within the limitation period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid service on the importer, so as to save the demand from being time-barred.

Analysis: Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits service of a notice on the person intended or on his agent. The notice in the present case was addressed to the importer and admittedly served on the clearing agent within six months. The importer produced no documentary proof that the clearing agent was not authorised to receive the notice. The scheme of Section 147(3) and the obligations under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 also support the view that the clearing agent may validly be treated as the receiving channel for such notice in the facts of the case. The authorities relied on by the appellants were distinguished as turning on different facts or on provisions not involving Section 147.

Conclusion: Service of the demand notice on the clearing agent amounted to valid service on the importer within the limitation period, and the demand for differential duty was not time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme permitted valid service through the clearing agent on the facts proved, so the confirmation of differential duty was sustained and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of service under the Customs Act, 1962, notice served on an authorised agent within the prescribed period is valid service on the importer, and a challenge based on non-receipt by the importer will not succeed absent proof negating such authority.

---