STREAMLINE FORWARDERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2015 of the 1st Respondent, rejecting the renewal application of the Petitioner to renew the Customs Broker Licence.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that the Managing Partner of the Petitioner Firm, entered into a registered partnership deed 21.2.1997 with four other persons to carry on Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding Business. The said firm was initially issued with Temporary Custom House Agent Licence under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation 1984. Thereafter, permanent CHA licence was issued and the partnership firm had undergone various reconstitutions from time to time. On 1.1.1998 one K.Manuvel was inducted into the firm and thereafter, on 18.2.2000 all other partners, except the Petitioner and Manikandan, have retired from the firm. Thereafter, the partnership was reconstituted by inducting Suresh Kumar Sain, Pradeep Kumar Sain and Amit Manchanda and then, one more partner S.Balachandran. Thereafter, all the partners went out of the firm and finally the Managing Partner of the firm and her husband were running the firm as Partners. All the above said reconstitutions were duly informed to the Respondents, which was endorsed in the licence by proceedings dated 22.4.2014. As there has been some delay in bringing the reconstitution to the knowledge of the Respondents, the Petitioner paid a penalty of a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 19.12.2014, as directed by the Respondents. The licence was to expire on 29.12.2014. The Petitioner applied renewal on 8.9.2014 for a further period of ten years as per Customs Broker Regulation 2013 along with necessary fee. As directed by the Respondents, the Petitioner paid a further sum of Rs.50,000/- and submitted solvency certificate to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and again, paid another sum of Rs.4,50,000/- on 5.12.2014. Later, the Petitioner came to know that on the grievance made by one of the erstwhile partners, the licence was not processed. Then, on further representation of the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent renewed the licence for three months upto 29.3.2015. Thereafter, the Petitioner made representations dated 17.2.2015 and 9.3.2015, seeking renewal of licence. As there was no progress, the Petitioner filed WP.No11764 of 2015, wherein it was directed to pass orders on the renewal application and till that time, the Petitioner was permitted to carry on their business. After passing of the orders of this court, the 1st Respondent passed the impugned order, rejecting the renewal application for license. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed for the relief as stated above.

(3.) The Respondents filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is averred as follows:-