9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an allegation of forgery. The other crucial misconduct which is highlighted in the impugned order is that the appellant had operated the licence without the Customs Authorized Signatory for three years, which fact also shakes the bona fides of the appellant. Instead of offering plausible explanation for the said misconduct, the appellant has only questioned the authority of the Commissioner as going beyond the issue. There are no irregularity or illegality committed by the Commissioner, Regulations of the CBLR authorize the Commissioner to check if there is anything adverse against a firm or company seeking fresh licence and to grant renewal of the same if there are no instances of any complaints of misconduct. There are no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, for which reason the appeal is dismissed. - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Shravan Kochar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Rajaraman, Assistant Commissioner for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the Custom House Agent/appellant against the Order-in-Original Sl. No.: 01/2017-(Cus.) Commissioner dated 30.01.2017 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... graph 3 of the Order of the Hon ble High Court in W.P. No. 42073 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016, which reads as under: - 3. It is seen that the petitioner's application for renewal was well within the period of limitation and it was submitted on 08.12.2015. On 14.12.2015, the petitioner submitted 10 documents and requested the third respondent to consider the same and renew the customs broker license. After receipt of those documents, the fourth respondent issued a notice, dated 22.01.2016 returning the petitioner's application for reasons stated therein. The petitioner re-presented the application along with their letter dated 25.02.2016, giving clarification for the queries pointed out. It is thereafter, once again, the fourth respondent issued another communication dated 01.04.2016 stating that there are deficiencies and discrepancies in the application for renewal and returned the application. The said application was re-presented by the petitioner along with the letter dated 11.04.2016. However, in the said letter, the petitioner has not specifically clarified the deficiencies and discrepancies pointed out in the communication dated 01.04.2016 of the third respondent, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason that the original CHA Licence was not traceable. The Reconstitution was informed to the Department and renewal was granted for ten years, but subsequent renewal was not made. The appellant has a right for renewal of the Licence, which has to be looked into only in terms of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013; the Revenue should have taken up the application for renewal even before the expiry of the Licence. The appellant had a good track record of work as a CHA and hence, the non-renewal of Licence by the Department is clearly erroneous. The application for changing the person authorized to do customs clearance work was pending consideration for more than three years for no fault of the appellant. Initially, Mr. R. Mahadevan was the authorized signatory, who was deleted from the firm with effect from 12.04.2011. Subsequently, Mr. Bose Thomas was appointed and he too resigned in July 2012. Immediately thereafter, the appellant appointed Mr. K. Sriram as the authorized signatory for carrying out the customs clearance work. Non-acceptance of the same by the Department vide communication dated 22.01.2016 was without any rhyme or reason. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en from their business volume details. 8.3 He would also draw our attention to the letter dated 01.04.2016 of the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) addressed to the appellant with regard to renewal of Customs Broker Licence, which is placed at page 36 of the appeal memorandum, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: - 03. Even though, Shri Mahadevan was removed by you as a Partner of the Firm, it was not officially accepted by this office as Shri Mahadevan vide his letter given during 2012 informed this office that there is a dispute between the Partners. As the above said deletion of Shri Mahadevan from the Partnership was not accepted by Commissioner, the application for renewal of Customs Broker Licence should contain Shri Mahadevan s name as one of the Partners and not that of the other two new Partners whose names have not been accepted by the Commissioner till date. 9. In his rejoinder, the Ld. Advocate reiterated the grounds urged, highlighting that the dispute, if at all, between the appellant and one of the erstwhile partners was a private dispute; the renewal of the Licence in question is to be judged only in terms of the Regulations and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such firm or company, as the case may be, grant a fresh licence: (Emphasis added) 13.1 From the above Regulations, we find that any licence granted under the CBLR is always a conditional one and not absolute and that the granting authority has a discretion to allow the renewal as well, as and when requested for. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has highlighted the conduct of the Managing Director of the appellant-firm: firstly, it appears that the Managing Partner suppressed the fact of the original licence having been available with the other partner namely, Mr. R. Mahadevan, and approached the Revenue for issuance of a duplicate licence on the ground that the same was missing / not traceable; it is also an undisputed fact that the said Managing Director reported the loss of licence to the police and obtained a copy of FIR from the police. Secondly, a subsequent application for issuance of licence is alleged to have been made with the same old date and some pages were changed This forgery of partnership deed was carried out by the Managing Partner . Thirdly, the subsequent application was made for the inclusion of Mr. Sriram as the authorized signatory, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
