ARVIND C BHAGAT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge of this Court, the appellant has comp up in this writ appeal. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order of the second respondent dated 2-9-1998 whereby his application for renewal of Customs House Agent Licence was rejected. In exercise of the powers under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, the Central Board has formulated Regulations under the title "Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984". These regulations deal with the subject of Customs House Agents, the manner of awarding licence to the Customs House Agents and the conditions on which the licence could be given and/or renewed. The licence is granted under Regulation 10 on an application under Regulation 5. The conditions are prescribed in Regulation No. 6. Regulation 12 provides the period of validity of a licence which is for five years and also provides that it can be renewed. Regulation 12(2) specifies the conditions for such renewal. Regulation 12(2)(b) is relevant for our purpose which provides as follows :- "12(2)(b). absence of instances of delay either in the clearance of goods or in the payment of duty for any reason attributable to such licensee and any complaints of misconduct including non-compliance of any of the obligations specified in Regulation 14." Regulation 14 provides for the obligation of Customs House Agent. Regulation 14(g) is relevant for our purpose which runs as follows :- "14(g). promptly pay over to the Government, which due, sums received for payment of any duty, tax or other debt or obligations owing to the Government and promptly account to his client for funds received for him from the Government or received from him in excess of Governmental or other charges payable in respect of the clearance of cargo or baggage on behalf of the client."

(2.) THE appellant had applied for his licence on 12-2-1992 as it was due to expire on 8-3-1992. THE same was renewed only for a period of six months instead of normal period of three years as an filed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) by the appellant relating to import of Cyclohexanone on the basis of fabricated documents and concessional duty was pending. It seems from the order that the appeal filed before the CEGAT was dismissed as not tenable and it was observed by the CEGAT that it was open to the department to take up such proceedings as are open to it in law for recovery of amounts from the appellant. It is then mentioned in the order that a separate Civil Suit has been filed by the department for the recovery of the surety amount. Under such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs seems to have refused to renew the licence.

(3.) THE learned single Judge took a view that since the appellant had given the guarantee to the department regarding the differential duty and has offered surety for the same amount, in law, it would be deemed as if, he had received the payment of duty so far as the departmental liability was concerned and if he failed to discharge his obligation contemplated under Regulation 14(g), then the department was justified in refusing to renew the licence. THE learned single Judge also took the view that the department was perfectly justified in taking into consideration the conduct on the part of the appellant for the purposes of deciding as to whether the licence should be renewed or not.