Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Arun Kumar Sikka And Asa ... vs Cc on 17 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(109)ECC137, 2006(110)ECC137, 2006ECR137(TRI.-DELHI), 2006(201)ELT309(TRI-DEL)
ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11/8/2005 wherein the adjudicating authority has rejected the application for renewal of C.H.A. Licence.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant was CHA functioning under the licence No. 41/87 granted to him. The said licence was valid up to 15/5/2001. The appellant did not apply for the renewal of the licence before the expiry, instead applied for the renewal on 17th February 2005. The reason cited for delay in application for renewal was that the proprietor of the appellant had a massive backbone problem due to which he was paralyzed. The adjudicating authority after granting a personal hearing came to conclusion that the licence of the appellant cannot be renewed for the reason that they have not fulfilled the conditions for renewal and that appellant has not intimated the department about serious illness of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
3. The learned advocate appearing the appellant fairly submits, that, the appellant has not intimated the serious illness of the proprietor, to the authorities, but this was due to the reason of anxiety in the family and not for any other reason. It was also submitted that the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the public notice No. 33/96, if the business conducted by the appellant from Delhi & Mumbai are clubbed. Relevant documents regarding the business conducted at both the places were produced.
4. The learned DR submits that the appellant should have intimated about the serious illness of the proprietor through any of their employee. It was submitted that in the total of absence of correspondence from the appellant till February 2005, it could eventually lead to conclusions that the appellant was not interested in continuing in the business of C.H.A. It was also submitted that the details of the business conducted at Mumbai was not produced before the adjudicating authority and is also not verified by any officer and hence can not be considered as business conducted by the appellant.
5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is a licenced C.H.A. was functioning under licence No. 41/87, and was valid up to 15/5/2001. I find from the records that the appellant have produced the Medical Certificate issued by a Medical practitioner that the proprietor of the appellant was suffering from serious illness and was under Medical Care till February 2005. The fact that the proprietor was seriously ill is also admitted by the department, as I find from the order that, the department has made out a grievance of not being kept informed about the serious illness of the proprietor. The explanation given by the appellant's advocate that there was tension in the family due to serious illness, in the circumstances, appears to be a convincing one. To my mind, rejecting an application for the renewal of licence, for not informing the department of illness, would be depriving a person of his livelihood. Hence the delay in filing the application for renewal of C.H.A. licence has to be condoned.
6 The renewal of the C.H.A. Licence is governed by the conditions as laid down in Regulation 12(2) and Public Notice No. 33/96 which are as under:
6.(1). As per Regulation 12(2) of the Customs House Agent licence Regulations, 1984, the Commissioner of Customs, may on application made by the licencee, before the expiry of the validity of the licence renew the licence for a period of five years form the date of expiration of the original licence granted under Regulation 10 or of the last renewal of such licence, as the case may be, if the performance of he licencee is found to be satisfactory with reference, interalia, to the following:
quantity or value of cargo cleared by such licencee conforming to norms as may be prescribed by the Commissioner.
(ii) Accordingly a Public Notice No. 33/96 specifying requirement of minimum business for Custom House Agent was issued by the Commissioner of customs. According to this Public Notice following norms were fixed regarding quantity/volume of cargo to be cleared in a year by a licencee for the purpose of renewal of custom House Agent's licence.
(a) 500 documents (e.g. Bills of Entry, shipping bills, Baggage forms and T.P) per OR
(b) Clearance of shipments of 5000 packages per year OR
(c) Clearance of shipment of packages of value not less than Rs. 50 lakhs per year.
(iii) It has also been provided that all application for renewal of licences should be accompanied by a statement of the volume of business transacted giving particulars about the number of documents, number of the packages, the value of goods and customs duty.
From the above it can be seen that if the C.H.A. is able to satisfy any of the conditions in (a) (b) or (c), the licence can be renewed. Further it can be seen that the conditions in (a) (b) or (c) has to be satisfied by a licencee for the purpose of renewal of customs House Agent's licence. The argument of the appellant, that, he was functioning as a C.H.A. under the same name and constitution from Mumbai and if the business conducted at Mumbai is considered, he is satisfying all the conditions, has force. I find that the details produced by the appellants has to be verified by the authorities about the authenticity, and that the appellants was indeed functioning as a C.H.A. at Mumbai is also to be ascertained. In the absence of any such authenticity the details furnished could not be relied upon.
7. Under the circumstances, in the interest of justice, it would be proper, that appellant be permitted to produce all the evidence, in respect of their claim before the adjudicating authority, who will verify the same, and if found correct, will arrange to renew the C.H.A. licence of the appellant, after condoning the delay in filing application for renewal. Suffice, to say, that, since the livelihood of the family of the appellant is dependent upon the C.H.A. licence, the authority will do the needful at the earliest.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority, to consider the matter afresh after granting the appellant an opportunity of personal hearing and producing evidence in support of thier claim. Appeal allowed by way of demand.