1985 (12) TMI 217 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Incorrect statement in the application for the Gold Dealer's Licence.
2. Signature on the renewal application of M/s. J. Chandulal & Co.
3. Alleged suppression of material facts.
4. Procedural irregularities in the cancellation of the licence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Incorrect Statement in the Application for the Gold Dealer's Licence:
The appellant, Shri Harshadray S. Soneji, was accused of making an incorrect statement in his application for a Gold Dealer's Licence. The Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay, cancelled the appellant's licence under Section 50 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, on the grounds that the appellant declared he had no interest in any gold dealing firm while he was still a partner in M/s. J. Chandulal & Co. The appellant argued that he had retired from the partnership effective 15-11-1982, and this was communicated to the Collector of Customs (Prev.), Bombay, and the remaining partners. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed retired from the partnership effective 15-11-1982, and thus, the statement in his application was not incorrect.

2. Signature on the Renewal Application of M/s. J. Chandulal & Co.:
The appellant signed the renewal application of M/s. J. Chandulal & Co. on 29-11-1982, which was used by the Collector to argue that the appellant had not effectively retired from the partnership. The appellant explained that his signature was appended on 22-12-1982 due to the insistence of Gold Control Officers for renewal purposes. The Tribunal found this explanation plausible and noted that the appellant was not listed as a partner in the renewal application, supporting the claim that he had retired.

3. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts:
The Collector argued that the appellant suppressed material facts by not disclosing his continued partnership in M/s. J. Chandulal & Co. The appellant provided documentary evidence, including letters from the Deputy Collector of Customs (Prev.), Gold Control, confirming his retirement effective 15-11-1982. The Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression of facts as the appellant had retired and the department was aware of this.

4. Procedural Irregularities in the Cancellation of the Licence:
The show cause notice issued to the appellant was for the suspension of the licence, not its cancellation. The Tribunal found this to be a violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 50(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, which requires a reasonable opportunity for the licence holder to show cause against cancellation. The Tribunal ruled that the Collector's order was illegal and improper due to this procedural irregularity.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the Collector's order to cancel the appellant's Gold Dealer's Licence was not legal and proper. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal directed that the Gold Dealer's Licence of the appellant should be continued. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and ensuring that decisions are based on accurate and complete information.