2016 (11) TMI 1767 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction upon the respondents 2 to 4 to renew the customs broker license issued to the petitioner - HELD THAT - It is seen that the petitioner s application for renewal was well within the period of limitation and it was submitted on 08.12.2015. On 14.12.2015 the petitioner submitted 10 documents and requested the third respondent to consider the same and renew the customs broker license. After receipt of those documents the fourth respondent issued a notice dated 22.01.2016 returning the petitioner s application for reasons stated therein. The petitioner re-presented the application along with their letter dated 25.02.2016 giving clarification for the queries pointed out. It is thereafter once again the fourth respondent issued another communication dated 01.04.2016 stating that there are deficiencies and discrepancies in the application for renewal and returned the application - the petitioner has not specifically clarified the deficiencies and discrepancies pointed out in the communication dated 01.04.2016 of the third respondent but has requested the third respondent to refer to his reply dated 25.02.2016. However the said reply dated 25.02.2016 has not been appended to this Writ Petition and therefore this Court is not in a position to readily examine as to what was the contents of the reply. Conclusion - The petitioner re-presented the application on 11.04.2016 but failed to clarify the pointed discrepancies instead referring to the earlier reply dated 25.02.2016 which was not included in the petition. Petition disposed off.

Summary

**Summary of the Judgement:**In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by The Honourable Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, the petitioner sought a directive for the renewal of a customs broker license, which expired on 28.12.2015. The petitioner had submitted the renewal application within the limitation period on 08.12.2015, along with necessary documents on 14.12.2015. However, the fourth respondent returned the application on 22.01.2016, citing unspecified issues. The petitioner re-submitted the application with clarifications on 25.02.2016, but the fourth respondent again returned it on 01.04.2016, noting deficiencies and discrepancies. The petitioner re-presented the application on 11.04.2016, but failed to clarify the pointed discrepancies, instead referring to the earlier reply dated 25.02.2016, which was not included in the petition.The court directed the petitioner to submit a clarification addressing the deficiencies noted in the 01.04.2016 communication within two weeks, attaching a copy of the court's order. Upon receipt, the fourth respondent is to issue a "speaking order on merits and in accordance with law" within three weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.