Page 198 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

380 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

56. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to reduction of the interest in
terms of the policy decision taken by the Ministry of Commerce in their public
notice referred to supra which has also been implemented by the Central Gov-
ernment with the issue of Customs Notification No. 46/2013-Customs, dated 26-
9-2013.
57. In both the cases, it appears that the bank guarantee furnished by
the respective petitioners exceeded the proportionate Customs duty payable on
the shortfall in export obligation. Thus, the amounts appropriated by the re-
spondents towards the interest cannot exceed the proportionate Customs duty
on the shortfall in the export obligation. Therefore, the amount of interest paya-
ble by the respective petitioners would require for re-quantification.
58. In the light of the above, I set aside the impugned orders and remit
the cases back to the original authority namely, the Joint Director General of For-
eign Trade, the licensing authority to re-determine the interest to be paid by the
respective petitioners in terms of Customs Notification No. 46/2013-Cus., dated
26-9-2013. The amount paid by the respective petitioners and appropriated to-
wards interest shall be given credit while computing at the balance amount to be
paid by the petitioner as per the above notification and in case there is any excess
payment, is directed to be refunded back to the respective petitioners.
59. Writ Petitions are disposed with the above observations. No cost.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 380 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[MADURAI BENCH]

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.
SHABEER AHMED SAYEED
Versus
PR. COMMR. OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), TIRUCHIRAPALLI

Writ Petition (MD) No. 14425 of 2019 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 10860-10861
of 2019, decided on 11-3-2020
Customs Broker - Upgradation from “H” card holder to “G” card
holder - Both written and oral examinations conducted for 100 marks each -
Out of 21 candidates who passed written examination only two declared as
having passed oral examination - Conduct any oral examination not provided
in relevant Rules, which stipulated that written examination alone must be
conducted - Element of bias can always be present in oral examination - To
eliminate such bias, it has been consistently held that marks allotted for oral
examination should be less than 25% of total marks - Nature of oral examina-
tion and basis for assessment of candidates not known - Conducting of exami-
nations and Public Notice No. 1 of 2019, wherein both written examination and
oral examination were stipulated struck down - Petitioner who passed written
examination to be appointed as G Card Holder, if he is otherwise eligible -
Regulations 2(h) and 13 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. - Ob-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  198