2026 (1) TMI 668 - AT - Customs

Service u/s 153 and declared value u/r 9 challenged; tribunal upholds service and re-valuation, appeal dismissed

Whether there was effective service under Section 153, Customs Act: Tribunal found postal returns and subsequent display on the Custom House notice board ... Effective service - mandate of Section 153 - license for import of the goods - violation of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) which resulted in issuance of Show Cause Notice - Opportunity of personal hearing - rejected the declared value and re determined the value in terms of Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 2007 - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the Appellant that Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 has not been properly followed, there is no effective service and the Customs authorities did not produce any proof of display of the order on the Notice Board at the Custom House, which we find unacceptable at this stage since the same ought to have been disputed before the First Appellate Authority. Contrary to the above, in the case on hand, as observed by us from a perusal of the communication dt. 28.12.2015 placed at page 221 of the appeal folder, the Authority clearly says that both the Order-in-Originals and the Detention Notices had been returned undelivered by the Postal authorities and hence displayed on the Notice Board at Custom House, Chennai, which clearly suggests due compliance with the provisions of Section 153 ibid. The above peculiar facts are not there in the decisions of Hon’ble Higher judicial fora, relied upon by the Appellant. The Appellant has not only vacated / changed its address, even not bothered to intimate the same to the Revenue, but has also instructed that postal letters to be returned, which is clearly after obtaining the release of the goods, which clearly shows that he did not come with clean hands. Thus, we do not find any bonafides in in any of the claims of the Appellant and therefore, we do not find any merit in the Appeals. Resultantly, we dismiss the Appeals and uphold the impugned orders. Issues: Whether the appeals against the Orders-in-Original (confiscation, re-determination of value under customs valuation rules, appropriation of amounts and imposition of fines/penalties) are maintainable specifically whether service of the Orders was valid under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the appellant's conduct/bona fides disentitles him to relief.Analysis: The appeals concern orders rejecting declared value and imposing confiscation, redemption fine and penalty after valuation under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The record shows that the Orders-in-Original and detention notices were returned undelivered by postal authorities and thereafter displayed on the Notice Board at the Custom House, Chennai, as reflected in departmental communication; the appellant had attended the personal hearing on 24.01.2011 and filed common written submissions but did not dispute change of address or non-service at that stage. Subsequent conduct alleged by the appellant includes vacating business premises and instructing the owner to return postal covers; the Tribunal found these facts inconsistent with a claim of non-receipt and indicative of lack of bonafides. The Tribunal applied the statutory service mechanism under Section 153 and considered the attendance at hearing and appropriation of deposits in assessing the appellant's entitlement to relief.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that service in accordance with Section 153 was effected by return and display on the Notice Board, the appellant failed to show bonafide non-receipt or to inform authorities of address change, and therefore the appeals lack merit and are dismissed in favour of the Revenue.