P.R. Elamurugu Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai dismissed a batch of appeals challenging orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, which had rejected the appeals as time-barred for having been filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days. The matter arose from multiple Orders-in-Original passed in March 2011 concerning imports of used digital multi-functional machines and used analogue photocopiers from Canada. The goods were found to be second-hand and imported without the required licence, leading to show cause notices alleging violation of the Foreign Trade Policy. Following writ petitions before the Madras High Court, the goods were provisionally released upon payment of specified amounts and execution of provisional bonds.
After adjudication, the declared value was rejected, the value was re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules, amounts already paid were appropriated, and confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were ordered. Copies of the Orders-in-Original were dispatched to the importer’s declared address, marked to the authorised representative and CHA, and displayed on the Customs House notice board after postal covers were returned undelivered.
Nearly four years later, during recovery proceedings, the importer claimed non-receipt of the adjudication orders, stating that the business had been closed and the premises vacated in January 2011 without informing Customs, and that postal articles received thereafter were returned. The Tribunal noted that the importer had attended personal hearing through counsel in January 2011 and had not intimated any change of address at that stage. It was also observed that instructing return of postal covers without informing the department, after securing release of goods, showed lack of bona fides.
