<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (11) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74285</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:49:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 238 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74285</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>