TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulations under the title "Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984". These regulations deal with the subject of Customs House Agents, the manner of awarding licence to the Customs House Agents and the conditions on which the licence could be given and/or renewed. The licence is granted under Regulation 10 on an application under Regulation 5. The conditions are prescribed in Regulation No. 6. Regulation 12 provides the period of validity of a licence which is for five years and also provides that it can be renewed. Regulation 12(2) specifies the conditions for such renewal. Regulation 12(2)(b) is relevant for our purpose which provides as follows :- "12(2)(b). absence of instances of delay either in the clearance of goods or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs seems to have refused to renew the licence. 3.The learned single Judge has taken a view that the refusal to renew the licence was perfectly legal and valid and it is on that ground that the writ petition was dismissed. 4.A short factual background would highlight the controversy. While working as the Custom House Agent, the appellant filed two Bills of Entry for home consumption of Cyclohexanone imported by two companies viz., M/s. Magnatapa Co., Kanpur and M/s. Wellow Magnetic Tape Co., Kanpur. The value of each consignment was declared at Rs. 3,66,580/-. Under the rules, the importers were bound to pay concessional duty at 35% on the ground that the imported goods were required for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly dated 22-11-1989 that he had no occasion to suspect the bona fides of the importers, that the said surety was given by him only on the directions of the department and that he himself was taking all the efforts to bring home the culprits. He also sought personal hearing. Ultimately, the Collector of Customs passed an order on 3-1-1991 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 2,37,131/- for each transaction. The appellant filed an appeal before the CEGAT vide Appeal Nos. C/141 and 142 of 1991 and as mentioned earlier, CEGAT passed final orders on the appeals holding that since the order passed by the Collector of Customs was not an order of adjudication within the meaning and mischief of the Customs Act, it had no jurisdiction to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge the liability of the importers. The department relied on Regulation 14(g), which has already been quoted above, and pointed out that if the appellant failed to make the payment to the department of the duty for which he stood surety, then the appellant had breached Regulation 14(g) and as such, the department was, therefore, justified in not renewing the licence. The department also relied on Regulation 12(2)(b) which entitles the department not to renew a licence in case, it is found that the concerned Customs House Agent has breached any of the Regulations under Regulation 14. 7.The learned single Judge took a view that since the appellant had given the guarantee to the department regarding the differential duty and has offered suret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough he had given a guarantee to the department and had offered himself as a surety for the payment of differential duty. Now if the appellant has offered himself as a surety and had given a guarantee to the department for the payment of differential duty, he was bound to discharge his obligations. It was his duty to ascertain and know about the status of the person for whom he gave the guarantee and stood as a surety. Not only this, but the guarantee offered by the appellant had been accepted and acted upon and, therefore, the appellant became all the more liable to make good the evaded duty which was due to the department. The learned single Judge has taken a correct view that once the appellant had given the guarantee for the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters. The appellant has accepted to fulfil the commitment of the importers, if the importers failed to do so. In that view, we do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant. 9.The learned Counsel for the appellant also fervently argued that the appellant had guaranteed to the department in all possible manners and in fact, the appellant, who himself as a Customs House Agent, had hardly any idea that the imports were not for the actual users and he could not as such have any idea of facts. It was for the appellant to ascertain all these things before he recklessly offered himself as a surety, guaranteeing part of the payment duty. Now the appellant cannot turn around and say that he did not have the id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
