LAWS(MAD)-2015-4-354

STREAMLINE FORWARDERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Decided On April 22, 2015
Streamline Forwarders Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by Streamline Forwarders, Chennai, represented by its Managing Parmer Ms. Srividya Priya, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to process and issue a renewal of Customs Brokers License to the petitioner herein within a time frame despite the oral or other objections raised by anyone pertaining to dispute in partnership. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into a registered Partnership Deed dated 21-2-1997 with M.A. Zageer Hussain, P. Manikandan, J. Rajagopalan and A. Rangarajulu to carry on business in "Shipping, Clearing and Forwarding and Consol". The said partnership underwent various reconstitutions from time to time.

(2.) On 1-1-1998, one K. Manuel was inducted to the firm. Again the partnership firm was once again reconstituted with Suresh Kumar Sain, Pradeep Kumar Sain and Amit Manchanda. The above reconstitution was also informed to the respondents from time to time. Once again the firm was reconstituted by inducting one more partner S. Balachandran. Thereafter, the firm was reconstituted with the petitioner and the petitioner's husband S. Balachandran and they were running the firm as partners, by doing Customs Clearance business with the permanent Customs Clearance Permit CHA Licence already issued to them without any interference. When the exclusion of Manikandan was also brought to the knowledge of the respondents and the same was also endorsed by the respondents in the license vide proceedings dated 28-4-2014, the respondents ought not to have delayed the request of the petitioner to issue a renewal of Customs Broker License.

(3.) It was the claim of the petitioner that when a process fee of Rs. 5,000/- was paid on 8-9-2014 and Solvency Certificate to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-, dated 11-11-2014 was produced and although the petitioner was not liable to pay penalty of Rs. 40,000/-, to avoid further controversy and to expedite the renewal, the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 19-12-2014.