2015 (12) TMI 1429 - HC - Customs

Rejection of the renewal application of the Petitioner to renew the Customs Broker Licence - Denial on the ground of partnership dispute - Held that - When the Petitioner applied for renewal on 8.9.2014, it was not processed by the Respondent Department on the grievance made by one of the erstwhile partners Suresh Kumar Sain. Thereafter, in order to find out the genuineness of the grievance and enquire into the matter, the erstwhile partners, P.Manikandan, Amit Manchanda, Suresh Kumar Sain, Pradeep Kumar Sain and Balachandran and the Manging Partner were summoned and their statements were recorded on 29.12.2014, 30.12.2014 and 9.1.2015. All the erstwhile partners, in their respective statements, have categorically stated that they are not aware of the reconstituted partnership deed dated 2.4.2012 and the signatures contained in the said reconstituted partnership deed and their resignation letters dated 31.3.2012 were forged. Hence, on the suspicion that their signatures were forged, the said partnership deed dated 2.4.2012, the resignation letters dated 31.3.2012 and the statements were sent to the Forensic Department for expert opinion. After analysis, the Forensic Department submitted a report dated 26.3.2015, opining that the signatures in question have been imitated and differ significantly from the standard in the handwriting characteristics and there was forgery of signatures. On the other hand, the Petitioner failed to disprove the forgery and the misconduct, by producing valid evidence. Therefore, ultimately it was held that there was no consensus among the partners of the Petitioner firm and the performance or act of the Petitioner was rightly held to be not satisfactory in terms of Regulation 9(2), inasmuch as the Petitioner contravened the said regulation, by submitting forged documents, which was proved by the forensic report and that claiming change in the constitution by forgery document would amount to misconduct and accordingly, the renewal application of the Petitioner was rejected and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of renewal application for Customs Broker Licence based on partnership dispute and forgery allegations.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner's case revolved around the reconstitution of the partnership firm over the years, with various partners retiring and new partners being inducted. The Petitioner applied for renewal of the Customs Broker Licence, but the application was rejected by the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner contended that the rejection was unjustified as it was based on partnership disputes rather than valid grounds under the Customs Broker Regulation 2013.

2. The Respondents, on the other hand, argued that the rejection was warranted due to misconduct and forgery found in the partnership documents submitted by the Petitioner. They highlighted that the Commissioner of Customs has the authority to deny renewal if instances of misconduct are found, as per Regulation 9(2) of CBLR 2013. The Respondents emphasized that the Petitioner had alternative remedies available, such as filing an appeal, and that the rejection was not solely based on partnership disputes.

3. The court examined the submissions from both sides and reviewed the evidence presented. It was noted that there was a partnership dispute raised by the Petitioner, which led to a direction to implead necessary parties. However, the impleading petition was withdrawn for unknown reasons, which affected the credibility of the Petitioner's case.

4. Referring to Regulation 9(2) of CBLR 2013, the court emphasized the importance of licensee performance and absence of misconduct in renewing a licence. The court found that the Petitioner failed to disprove the forgery allegations and misconduct, as evidenced by a forensic report indicating significant differences in signatures. Consequently, the court upheld the rejection of the renewal application, stating that the Petitioner's actions contravened the regulations and did not merit the grant of a licence.

5. Due to the Petitioner's inability to address the forgery allegations and the failure to involve necessary parties despite court directions, the court dismissed the Writ Petition. A cost of &8377; 10,000 was imposed on the Petitioner, to be paid to the Chief Justice Flood Relief Fund within two weeks. The connected MP was also closed as a result of the dismissal of the Writ Petition.