H.K. Dave Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....the shortfall in business but attributed it to the illness of the partner. the commissioner did not accept these contentions and passed orders revoking the licence. hence this appeal.3. from the facts that we have narrated above, it will be clear that on the death of shankarlal dave on 12.8.99, the licence issued to the firm ceased to be valid by operation of regulation 16. shankarlal dave was also the only person in the firm who was empowered under regulation 9 to transact business in the custom house there was no one in the firm after his death that was competent under regulation 9 to conduct business; for this reason also, the licence ceased to be valid. that being the case, the question of issuing notice to revoke the licensee on the ground that he did not fulfil the norms of the business would not arise.4. the counsel for the applicant request for a direction that the application that was made under regulation 16 for issue of a fresh licence after shankarlal dave's death should be disposed of by the commissioner. while directing the commissioner to dispose of the application according to law, we dismiss the appeal.

Judgment:

1. H.K. Dave, the appellant before us, was licensed in 1992 as a custom house agent at Kandla under the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984. The licence was duly renewed until 1.7.95 when it was renewed for a further period of five years. Shankarlal Dave, one of the firm's five partners, was the person who was qualified to conduct custom house work Shankarlal Dave fell ill in 1997, and after a prolonged illness, died in 1999. Subsequent to his death, the firm applied on 7.9.99 to the Commissioner for grant of a fresh licence under Regulation 16. This regulation reads as follows: 2. It is stated that this application is still pending before the Commissioner. In the meantime, notice dated 13.4.2000 was issued to the appellant from the Commissioner proposing revocation of the licence on the ground that during the periods 1997-98, 1998-99 and part of 1999-2000, the appellant had not conducted the minimum business required Regulation 12(2) permits the Commissioner to prescribe the minimum volume of work that a custom house agent must conduct, and, by issue of a public notice, the Collector at Kandla had prescribed a minimum annual turnover. The appellant admitted the shortfall in business but attributed it to the illness of the partner. The Commissioner did not accept these contentions and passed orders revoking the licence. Hence this appeal.

3. From the facts that we have narrated above, it will be clear that on the death of Shankarlal Dave on 12.8.99, the licence issued to the firm ceased to be valid by operation of Regulation 16. Shankarlal Dave was also the only person in the firm who was empowered under Regulation 9 to transact business in the Custom House There was no one in the firm after his death that was competent under Regulation 9 to conduct business; for this reason also, the licence ceased to be valid. That being the case, the question of issuing notice to revoke the licensee on the ground that he did not fulfil the norms of the business would not arise.

4. The counsel for the applicant request for a direction that the application that was made under Regulation 16 for issue of a fresh licence after Shankarlal Dave's death should be disposed of by the Commissioner. While directing the Commissioner to dispose of the application according to law, we dismiss the appeal.