Customs notice service through agent upheld, with proper officer approval and post-clearance short-levy recovery sustained.

Service of a show cause notice on a Customs House Agent was treated as valid service on the importer where the record and the importer's conduct supported authority under Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the claimed later receipt by the importer was unsupported by reliable evidence. The notice was also upheld as properly issued because the Assistant Collector had authorised and initialled it before issuance. Reassessment and short-levy recovery under Section 28 were held competent even after clearance of the goods, and the challenge that the proceedings were barred after clearance was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the show cause notice on the Customs House Agent was valid service on the importer and whether the demand was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the notice was invalid for want of approval or signature by the proper officer; (iii) Whether reassessment proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were incompetent after clearance of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether service of the show cause notice on the Customs House Agent was valid service on the importer and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The record showed that the notice was received by the CHA in duplicate and one copy was to be sent to the importer. The importer did not establish that the CHA was not authorised to receive the notice, and the conduct of appearing through the CHA before the Assistant Collector supported an inference of authority. The burden under Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not discharged to rebut the presumption that the act of receipt by the agent was with the knowledge and consent of the importer. The claimed later date of receipt by the importer was unsupported by postal proof, inward register, or other reliable evidence.

Conclusion: Service on the CHA was valid service on the importer, and the demand was not time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice was invalid for want of approval or signature by the proper officer.

Analysis: The Assistant Collector had authorised issue of the draft notice, had examined the approved notice, and had initialled it before issuance. The notice was therefore issued under the instructions and approval of the proper officer. The challenge based on absence of proper authority was held to be without merit.

Conclusion: The notice was validly issued by the proper officer.

Issue (iii): Whether reassessment proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were incompetent after clearance of the goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 as analogous to the settled short-levy recovery provisions recognised in the cited authorities. Clearance of the goods did not prevent initiation of proceedings for recovery of short levy. The appellant also did not substantiate the plea that the original assessment could not be reopened in the manner adopted by the department.

Conclusion: The reassessment and short-levy proceedings were competent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds and the demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record and the importer's conduct show that a Customs House Agent was authorised to receive the notice, service on the agent constitutes valid service on the importer, and short-levy recovery under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not barred merely because the goods had already been cleared.

---