2016 (6) TMI 752 - HC - Customs

Renewal of Customs Brokers License - application for renewal of the Customs Broker licence is not being considered by the commissioner since the penalty was imposed on the Managing Director of the company - Held that - Regulation 5 of the Regulations only provides that the applicant for a licence to act as a Customs Broker in a Customs Station, shall not be a person on whom penalty has been imposed under the Customs Act, Central Excise Act and the Finance Act. The respondents have no case that any penalty has been imposed on the petitioner company. Mr. Bethusami Bethuraj on whom penalty was imposed as per Ext.P1 order is the Managing Director of the company. Mr. Bethusami Bethuraj is only an officer of the company. As such, refusal to deny renewal of the licence sought by the petitioner on the ground that penalty was imposed on its Managing Director cannot be sustained. The regulations do not prescribe any qualification or disqualification for the officers of companies/firms other than the partner or director or the authorised employee who is handling the customs work. - the writ petition allowed. - the first respondent to consider the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner and grant the renewal sought by the petitioner if their application is otherwise in order. - Decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Renewal of Customs Broker license based on penalty imposed on Managing Director.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Customs Broker, sought renewal of their license under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, which had expired. The renewal application was not being considered due to a penalty imposed on the Managing Director in relation to his conduct at another company. The respondents contended that as per Regulation 5(e) of the Regulations, a person penalized under the Customs Act is not entitled to license renewal. The court examined Regulation 5(e) and (f) of the Regulations, which state that the applicant for a Customs Broker license should not have been penalized for any offense under the Customs Act, Central Excise Act, or Finance Act. The court noted that the penalty was imposed on the Managing Director of the company, not the company itself, and the regulations do not disqualify officers of companies/firms other than those directly handling customs work.

The court held that the refusal to renew the license based on the penalty imposed on the Managing Director was not sustainable. Regulation 5(f) of the Regulations only prescribes disqualifications for the authorized representative handling customs work in firms or companies, not for officers like the Managing Director. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and directing the first respondent to consider the renewal application and grant the renewal if in order, within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The petitioner was given the liberty to produce a certified copy of the judgment for compliance with the direction.