SREE NARAYAN GHOSH Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Sree Narayan Ghosh has been acting as Custom House agent at Calcutta for a number of years. For that purpose, he had obtained a licence from the Customs Authorities. Sometime in May, 1960, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the Chief Customs Authority promulgated Rules known as the 'Customs House Agents Licencing Rules, 1960'. The relevant part of Rule 24 thereof is as follows:

(2.) By virtue of this Rule, the Petitioner was granted, a special temporary licence renewable from year to year. On July 14, 1961, the licence which was being held by the Petitioner expired and the Petitioner applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs for Establishment and Administration, for renewal thereof under Rule 24(2) of the said Licencing Rules for a further period of one year. On August 24, 1961 the Assistant Collector served a notice upon the Petitioner to show cause why the renewal of the said licence should not be refused. In fact by an order of the Collector of Customs dated March 24, 1962 the Collector refused to renew his licence. It is against this order that this application is directed.

(3.) This application was first made before Banerjee, J. who summarily rejected the application. Against the order of summary rejection, the Petitioner went up on appeal and by an order dated January 24, 1963, the appeal was allowed and it was directed that a Rule should issue and be heard in the usual manner. The Rule was accordingly issued and has now been heard. In order to appreciate the nature of the application it is necessary to state certain facts. As I have stated above, the Petitioner was acting as a Custom House agent and one of his duties was to act as a clearing agent for imports of goods from abroad. In 1959, the Petitioner acted as a clearing agent in respect of two importations. These two importations arrived per 'S.S. Eastern Mail', Rot. No. 100/59, Line Nos. 20 and 23 respectively. The bill of entry relating to the consignment under Line No. 20 was made out by the Petitioner in the name of Messrs Stifling Traders and Enterprise. The declared goods under the bill of entry were 800 pieces motor car tail lamps weighing 672 lbs. per bill of lading. The first consignment comprised of 8 cases and was taken delivery of on February 2, 1959, in four handcarts. Another bill of entry regarding the second consignment covered by Line No. 23 was submitted by the Petitioner as drawn up in the name of Messrs J.N. Maitra. This consignment covered ten cases consisting of 1,000 pieces motor car tail lamps weighing 3684 lbs. as per bill of lading and imported from the same suppliers. This consignment of 10 cases was taken delivery of in one handcart on March 17, 1959. On or about August 4, 1960, notice was served on the Petitioner, together with Messrs National Trading Agency and several other firms mentioned therein, whereby they were called upon to produce a valid import trade control licence covering all the said goods and to show cause why the importation should not be treated as being in contravention of several provisions of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 and Sea Customs Act. The parties including the Petitioner showed cause and were heard and by orders passed by the appropriate authority on May 6, 1961 arid August 8, 1961 the parties were found guilty and various orders and penalties were passed and so far as the Petitioner is concerned, a penalty was imposed upon him for Rs. 500 under Section 167(39) of the Sea Customs Act. Against the said order, the Petitioner has filed an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, which is still pending. The case on behalf of the Respondent appears to be as follows: These two consignments were passed through the Customs. Random checking was done and the goods were passed and thereafter removed beyond the Customs barrier. It was thereafter detected that the records showed that a fraud had been perpetrated. The goods came from the same manufacturer and were of the same specification, so that it was extraordinary that in the first consignment 800 pieces of motor car tail lamps in 8 cases weighed 672 lbs. and were carted away in four handcarts whereas in the second consignment 1,000 pieces of motor car tail lamps in 10 cases weighed 3684 lbs. and were carted away only in one handcart. The finding is that the goods were not properly entered into the bills of entry and the same goods were shown twice over to the appraising staff and were cleared illegally. I am not concerned in this case with the validity of the said order, which is the subject-matter of an appeal before the Board of Revenue and I should say nothing on the merits. The show-cause notice, with which we are concerned in this case, is the one issued to the Petitioner on August 24, 1961, by the Assistant Collector of Customs, to show cause why the renewal of his licence should not be refused. The reasons given in the show-cause notice is that he had been adjudged guilty of violation of Section 167(39) of the Sea Customs Act and had been punished by an order directing him to pay a penalty of Rs. 500. It was stated that the Assistant Collector considered the Petitioner as unsuitable to function as a Custom House agent at the Calcutta Custom House under proviso (ii) to Rule 24(1) of the said Licencing Rules, because he had been so adjudged. As I have stated above, the Collector of Customs has passed an order refusing the renewal of his licence. It is against this order of refusal that this application is directed. The provisions as to renewal of licence and particularly of a special temporary licence granted under Rule 24 of the Licencing Rules have been set out above. There can be no doubt that the Collector of Customs has a discretion in the matter and he is not bound to grant a special temporary licence if he considers a person generally unsuitable to function as a Custom House agent. Since the non-issue of such a licence would present the Petitioner from pursuing the profession of his choice, the question comes into existence of a possible violation of his fundamental rights and the question of any possible violation of the rules of natural justice is also involved.