1993 (9) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of claim for grant of regular license as Customs House Agent
- Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984
- Validity of impugned order as a non-speaking order
- Consideration of instructions issued by Principal Collector of Customs, Madras

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against the rejection of a claim for the grant of a regular license to function as a Customs House Agent (CHA) in Bangalore under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The appellant, a permanent CHA in Madras, applied for a similar license in Bangalore due to business expansion and was initially granted a temporary license. The impugned order rejecting the permanent license did not provide any reason and was deemed a non-speaking order. The appellant argued that there was no legal basis for denying the permanent license when he had been compliant with regulations and referred to instructions allowing CHAs to hold licenses in different stations. The issue centered on whether one could hold licenses in multiple places, as the impugned order did not cite any statutory provision supporting the denial of the permanent license.

The Member (J) considered the submissions and noted that the appellant had been operating successfully as a CHA in both Madras and Bangalore. The impugned order's rationale for denying the permanent license based on the prohibition of holding licenses in two different places lacked statutory backing. The judgment referenced Note No. 66/89-PA (SZO) issued by the Principal Collector, which highlighted common mistakes made by Collectorates in dealing with CHA applications. The note clarified that there was no requirement for a CHA to delete their name from one station to operate in another or for the proprietor to permanently reside in the second station. The judgment emphasized that as long as a qualified individual was available, there was no need to regulate the internal functioning of the CHA firm. Given the lack of irregularities in the appellant's operations and in line with the Principal Collector's instructions, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.