9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm's business in Chennai had improved, the petitioner firm was qualified, it had applied for Custom House Agent Licence under Regulation 10(2) of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 1984. Based on the said application, the second respondent had issued the licence under Regulation 10(2) bearing licence No. R/282, dated 3-7-1989. As per the said licence, it was operating as Custom House Agent upto 16-1-1997. It was operating as an agent both in Bangalore as well as in Chennai. Since its business at Bangalore went down, its licence to operate at Bangalore had not been renewed and the petitioner firm had decided to pursue its business at Chennai only. Therefore, the petitioner firm had applied for renewal of the Custom House Agent Licence granted at Chennai, as per regulation 12 of Custom House Agent Licensing Act, 1984. The second respondent had passed an order, dated 28-4-1998, rejecting the petitioner firm's application for renewal, and thereby, cancelled the Custom House Agent Licence. Since the order was passed without following the principles of natural justice, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) had remanded the matter back for de novo adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the said order, the petitioner firm had filed an application for grant of temporary Custom House Agent Licence on 10-1-2001. However, by order, dated 13-3-2001, the second respondent had rejected the application for grant of temporary Custom House Agent Licence. The petitioner firm preferred an appeal against the said order of rejection before the first respondent herein and by order, dated 30-7-2001, in order No. 8/2001 the first respondent dismissed that appeal. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner firm that this Court had not decided the matter on merits while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 5678 of 2000 filed by the second respondent and even though the writ petition was disposed of, the Final Order No. 53 of 1999, dated 5-1-1999, passed by the Appellate Authority had not been set aside on merits and therefore the final order No. 53/99, dated 5-1-1999, passed by the Appellate Authority still holds good and the second respondent ought to have implemented the same. Even though, several representations were made on behalf of the petitioner firm, the second respondent had not implemented the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 5-1-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHA licence and the licence issued at Chennai is an independent permit though it is based on the Bangalore licence. Accordingly, the Chennai licence is not a subsidiary to the parent licence, which stands on its own merits. A personal hearing was accorded to them on 17-7-1998. At the time of personal hearing, the petitioner firm had, inter alia, stated that the employment and livelihood of the party and its employees mainly depend on the Chennai licence. Finally, the Commissioner of Customs by an order, dated 28-7-1998, confirmed its earlier stand and cancelled the CHA licence issued at Chennai. Against the above order, dated 28-7-1998, the petitioner firm had again approached the CEGAT. The CEGAT, by its Order No 53/99, dated 5-1-1999, set aside the final order, dated 28-7-1998 of the Commissioner and directed the respondent to renew the CHA licence of the petitioner firm under Regulation 12 from the date of its expiry. 7. It is further submitted by the respondent that a reference application filed against the Order No. 53/99, dated 5-1-1999, passed by the CEGAT, Chennai, had been rejected as not maintainable by the CEGAT. In view of the rejection of the reference application b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on fulfilled the conditions referred in Regulation 6(a) of CHALR' 84. Hence the application was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs vide O-in-O, dated 23-1-2000. The respondent further submits that the petitioner firm went in appeal against this O-in-O with the Chief Commissioner of Customs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs by Order No. 8/2001, dated 30-7-2001, had upheld the O-in-O, dated 23-1-2000, issued by the lower authority. 10. In so far as the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner firm is concerned, the respondent submitted that this Court by its order, dated 23-11-2000, had directed the second respondent only to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the same. Since a writ petition in W.P. No. 5678 of 2000 had already been filed against the Tribunal's order, dated 5-1-1999 before this court, the question of renewing the old licence did not arise. Therefore, the order passed by the Chief Commissioner upholding the order of the Commissioner is sustainable and well within the law. The respondents further submitted that the petitioner firm's contention that the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
