9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 12.04.2011. (ii) The appellant vide letter dated 27.05.2011 sought for issuance of duplicate CHA Licence for the reasons set out therein. (iii) Much later i.e., on 13.03.2012, the appellant appears to have submitted Form-A and other relevant documents, including the 'Minutes of meeting held on 27-12-2010 for removal of Shri R. Mahadevan and inclusion of Shri Bose Thomas as an authorized person to transact Custom House Work' (Sl. No. 7 of the contents, at page 49 of the appeal memorandum) to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Policy), Coimbatore. (iv) On account of dispute, it appears that Mr. R. Mahadevan filed a civil suit, but no supporting documents have been filed before us in this regard other than print-outs of telegrams dated 16.07.2012 (placed at pages 45-A, 45-B and one unnumbered page in the appeal memorandum). (v) Application dated 14.12.2015 was filed by the appellant for renewal of Customs Broker's Licence. Form-A records the fact (at row no. 4) that 'R. MAHADEVAN' was being replaced by a person by name 'K. SRIRAM' (page 44), which is contrary to the enclosure at Sl. No. 7 of the appellant's letter dated 13.03.2012 (placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nication, dated 01.04.2016 issued by the fourth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also enclose a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the fourth respondent shall consider and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the reply." 4.3 Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.12.2016, a request was made by the appellant for renewal of Licence in terms of the Order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra). 5. Personal Hearing was granted and it appears that the appellant appeared in the Personal Hearing before the Commissioner, as evidenced by the Record of Personal Hearing dated 18.01.2017, which is placed on record before us. Thereafter, the Order-in-Original Sl. No.: 01/2017-(Cus.) Commissioner dated 30.01.2017 came to be passed, against which the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 6. Initially, the appellant-firm was having only two partners, which was reconstituted with the induction of Mr. R. Mahadevan as per the "Deed of Reconstitution of Partnership" dated 30.05.2000 (placed at pages 60 to 67 of the appeal memorandum). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Custom House work on their behalf under Regulation 17 of the CHALR, 2004. 8.2 He would also refer to the findings at various paragraphs of the impugned order, the relevant portions of which are reproduced hereunder: - * "Then Shri K.N. Pai, Managing Partner of M/s. Premier Enterprises approached this office to issue a Duplicate Customs Broker Licence as the same is missing/non-traceable for which this office informed him to get a FIR copy from Police regarding non-traceability/missing and he submitted the same and this office issue duplicate Customs Broker Licence on 22.07.2011. Later on, Shri Mahadevan, the other Partner submitted the original Customs Broker Licence issued to them which reveals that the Managing Partner Shri K.N. Pai knows that the original licence is with the disputed partner and hiding this fact he has applied for duplicate Customs Broker Licence." * "During 05.07.2012, the Managing Director of M/s. Premier Enterprises approached this office to include Shri Shriram as authorized signatory for which this office asked clarification regarding the existing authorized signatory Shri Bose Thomas which was not replied till now and hence the same was not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents placed on record. 11. Regulation 9 of the CBLR, 2013 reads as under:- "9. Period of validity of a licence. (1) A licence granted under regulation 7 shall be valid for a period of ten years from the date of issue and shall be renewed from time to time in accordance with the procedure specified in sub regulation (2): Provided that a licence granted to a Customs Broker, authorised under the Authorised Economic Operator Programme referred to in Board's Circular No. 28/2012 Customs dated 16.11.2012, shall not require renewal till such time the said authorisation is valid. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may, on an application made by the licensee before the expiry of the validity of the licence under sub-regulation (1), renew the licence for a further period of ten years from the date of expiration, if the performance of the licensee is found to be satisfactory with reference, inter alia, to the obligations specified in this regulation including the absence of instances of any complaints of misconduct. (3) The fee for renewal of a licence shall be five thousand rupees." (Emphasis added) 12. Regulation 13(1) of the CBLR, 2013, as applicable, which is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or three years i.e., 2013, 2014 and 2015 and cleared various consignments, which could be seen from their business volume details. The above observations are quite serious, having known that the other party had with him the original licence, the appellant appears to have filed a false complaint with the police alleging about the loss of the original licence, a copy of which was also filed with the Revenue authorities requesting for a duplicate of the same on the very same ground of loss/misplacement. There was also an allegation of forgery. The appellant against whom the above serious allegations/observations were made was therefore required to offer reasonable explanation and establish his bona fides, but however, the above allegations remain unanswered even before us. The other crucial misconduct which is highlighted in the impugned order is that the appellant had operated the licence without the Customs Authorized Signatory for three years, which fact also shakes the bona fides of the appellant. Instead of offering plausible explanation for the said misconduct, the appellant has only questioned the authority of the Commissioner as going beyond the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
