9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty". 3. Warehousing station has been defined in Section 2(45) as a place declared as Warehousing station under Section 9. There is no dispute that the place at which the petitioner has been permitted to run a Public Bonded Warehouse is a warehousing station. There appears to be a good deal of confusion as to the true nature of the Public Bonded Warehouse and the Private Bonded Warehouse in the Customs Department itself. The petitioner was granted a licence sometime in 1980 to run a Private Warehouse. The licence was granted in a printed form issued by the Collectorate of Customs. The printed form is under the Heading "Licence for Private Bonded Warehouse" and contains the following recitals :- "The undermentioned godown being the property of Mr./M/s. ............. Is hereby licensed under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, as amended, as a Private Bonded Warehouse for storage of........." There is no dispute that the petitioner was granted a licence in that form in 1980. The licence was renewed in 1981 in prescribed form issued by the Collectorate of Customs. The Heading of the form of renewal is "Renewal of Licence for Private/Public Bonded Warehouse". In the body of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no allegation of mismanagement against the petitioner. The only allegation for cancellation of the licence or not to renew the licence is that the Assistant Collector of Customs had not taken into consideration the existing instructions, conditions, limitations and restrictions. In other words the licence was issued by the Assistant Collector contrary to the direction and instruction issued by the Customs Department. The basic principle that has to be borne in mind in the cases of licensing of business is that no one can claim a licence to carry a business as of right. But if the Government issues a licence and person sets up a business on the basis of that licence, the Government should not refuse to extend that licence arbitrarily because the result of revocation or non-continuance of the licence will be disastrous for the licensee. He will have to dismantle a business set up at great cost and expenditure. This point has been made clear by S.A. do SMITH in the Book "Judicial Review of Administrative Action" at page 197 in the following words :- "Non-renewal of an existing licence is usually a more serious matter than refusal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central Government may authorise the Board, a Collector of Customs or a Deputy or Assistant Collector of Customs to appoint officers of customs, below the rank of Assistant Collector of Customs." "S. 5. Powers of officers of Customs. (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Board may impose, an officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under this Act. (2) An officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed under this Act on any other officer of customs who is subordinate to him. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section [a Collector (Appeals)] shall not exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on an officer of customs other than those specified in Chapter XV and Section 108". 10. The Central Government alone can appoint Customs officers. The Central Government, however has been empowered to authorise the Board or the Collector Customs or the Deputy or the Assistant Collector of Customs to appoint officers of Customs below the rank of Assistant Collector of Customs. The provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover, the Central Board may impose conditions and limitations on the exercise of statutory power of a Customs officer. The provision of sub-section 1 of Section 5 do not empower the Central Board to enlarge the scope of the statutory jurisdiction of any officer including the Collector of Customs. Under sub-section 2 of Section 5 the Collector, however, may if he so thinks fit in the interest of administrative convenience, exercise the statutory powers and discharge the statutory duties of an Assistant Collector of Customs. But the Collector has not done that in this case. In the impugned order the Collector does not state that the Board has taken away the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector under Section 57 and conferred the said jurisdiction upon the Collector. All that the Collector states in the impugned order is that the Central Government has taken away the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector by issuing necessary executive instructions. If that be the case, then the Central Government has acted de hors the provision of the Customs Act. Copies of various General Orders including the order contained in the letter dated 7th July, 1980 issued by the Government of India ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovide the service to the Trade and Industry efficiently and at reasonable cost. 4. In the warehouses in the interior, warehousing of only such goods will be permitted as are either industrial raw materials or component parts. 5. This policy has been adopted in order to provide requisite facilities to the Trade and Industry to the extent possible and also to ensure, at the same time, that revenue interest stand fully safeguarded through the provision of adequate and expert customs staff places in the interior. 6. The warehouse owners/Trade concerned will be required to pay for the customs staff employed, for the purpose on a cost recovery basis. 16. There is no indication in the Public Notice that the statutory power of the Asstt. Collector was to be exercised by the Collector. As I have already held earlier in the Judgment that the power of Asstt. Collector under Section 57 could only be modified or curtailed by the Collector. It could not be modified by merely writing a letter modifying the powers of the Assistant Collector by the Central Government. Therefore, I am of the view that the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector under Section 57 had not been taken away in any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The allegation which has not been denied is that the Bengal Bonded Warehouse has been appointed as a public warehouse. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that no one has any vested right in a mistake committed by the Government. The Government or a Government Body cannot be called upon to commit the same mistake over and over again. I am prepared to uphold the contention that if the Bengal Bonded Warehouse was appointed a public warehouse by mistake the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim that the same mistake must be committed in his own case. The petitioner as well as the Bengal Bonded Warehouse Association are Private Organisations. If the stand taken by the Customs Department is right, then both were appointed public warehouses by mistake under Section 57 of the Customs Act. It has not been explained why the Collector of Customs has taken the view that the petitioner as a Private Organisation cannot be appointed to run a public warehouse whereas the Bengal Bonded Warehouse Association may be allowed to carry on its business of running public warehouses at the same time. 21. In the affidavit-in-Opposition it has been stated by Sukhendu Chatterjee, Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
