Importer Shifts address without Intimation, Returned Postal Covers: CESTAT Calls Conduct Not Bona Fide, Declines Relief [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Chennai, has ruled that an importer cannot later use non-service of orders as a basis for seeking relief if he moved his company address without notifying Customs and made sure that postal covers were returned undelivered.

Mr. P.R. Elamurugu, Proprietor of M/s Mass The Toner Shop, filed multiple appeals before appellate tribunal against common Orders in Original (OIO). Through the OIO, the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed his appeals as time-barred, since they were filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days.

The appellant imported used digital multifunctional printing/copying machines and used analogue photocopiers from Canada. The Department alleged that the importer failed to produce the required import licence, and the goods were found to be second-hand in nature.

Further, the department issued issuance of show cause notices proposing confiscation for violation of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy(FTP).

The adjudicating authority passed multiple Orders-in-Original in March 2011, rejecting declared value, re-determining value under the CustomsValuation Rules, appropriating amounts already paid, and imposing redemption fine and penalties.

The bench of Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Judicial member) and P. Dinesha (Technical member) noted that the Orders were dispatched to the importer at the address available and copies were also marked to the representative/CHA.

It was further observed that since the postal covers were returned undelivered, the Department also displayed the orders on the Custom House Notice Board, as permitted under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962.

After 4 years, when recovery proceedings were initiated, the importer claimed that he never received the Orders-in-Original.

In his letter dated 22.01.2016, the importer stated that he had closed down the business and shifted to his native place Tiruvarur in January 2011, and that the landlord had returned postal covers received in his name.

To the above contention, the CESTAT observed that “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.”

Accordingly, the bench observed that such conduct is not bona fide, and therefore declined to interfere with the dismissal of appeals as time-barred. The appeal was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates