Page 181 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI v. FREIGHT FIELD (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. 91

The penultimate part of the Order-in-Original reads thus :
“19. I order forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twen-
ty-five thousand only) submitted by the CHA M/s. Freight Field (Madras)
Pvt., Ltd., for the violations of provisions of CHALR, 2004 proved in the
proceedings before me. I also warn the CHA to be more careful in future.”
(Emphasis is ours)
32. In this context, we would like to point out that, Regulation 9 speaks
about grant of licence, which we have already quoted. From the reading of Regu-
lation 9(3), it has become clear that, even at the time of granting the licence ini-
tially if anything adversely noted against the applicant, the licensing authority
can reject the application for grant of license.
33. Like that, under Regulation 11, which speaks about the validity of
licence and renewal of licence, the licence once issued will be valid for 10 years,
thereafter on application, it would be renewed, however the renewal is based on
the satisfactory performance of the licensee. The language used in sub-regulation
(2) of Regulation 11 states that, “If the performance of the licensee is found to be
satisfactory with reference, inter alia, to the following :
(a) ……
(b) absence of instances of any complaints of misconduct including
non- compliance of any of the obligations specified in Regulation
13”.
34. Therefore even for a normal renewal of licence, after expiry of the
term, the licensee must satisfy the licensing authority that, there is no complaints
of misconduct including non-compliance of any of the obligation specified in
Regulation 13. Therefore if any violation of Regulation 13 is noticed, then the li-
censee is not entitled to get the renewal of licence, even though such licensee has
not been punished for such violation of Regulation 13.
35. From the reading of these regulations, we find that, the Board while
making regulation, under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, has made it clear
that, certain obligations has to be scrupulously followed or to be fulfilled by the
licensee as enumerated under Regulation 13 and if any violation is noticed, even
though the licence is not revoked in between, at the time of renewal, that will
have a bearing and such licensee would not be or may not be eligible to get re-
newal.
36. Therefore the paramount intention of the Regulation makers was
that, the licensee must fulfil all obligations and no adverse notice should have
been there against such licensee and on satisfaction of these aspects only even
renewal can be given in normal circumstances.
37. When that being the position, if any violation is noticed and proved
under which several obligations under Regulation 13 are violated by the licensee,
whether still the licensee can survive without being subjected to revocation of
such licence, is a moot question.
38. In that context, whether the circumstances, under which a lenient
view taken in a case of this nature, justifies the action of licensing authority in
taking such a lenient view, can very well be testified before the Court of law. Fur-
ther the order passed in Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Cus-
toms/Licensing Authority is purely an adjudicative order and it cannot be con-
strued as an administrative order.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  181