Manilal Patel Clearing Forwarding P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/944111
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided OnFeb-16-2012
Case Number Appeal No.C/558/11 (Arising out Order-in-Original No. 47/CAO/CAC/CC(G)/SLM/ CHA/2011 dated 30.0
Judge THE HONOURABLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
AppellantManilal Patel Clearing Forwarding P. Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai
Advocates:For the Appellant : Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Kalra, Appraiser (AR).
Excerpt:
ashok jindal, member (judicial) the appellant who is a custom house agent has challenged the order of revocation of cha licence no. 11/90 dated 29.6.2011. 2. the facts of the case are that the information was received by commissioner of customs, tuticorin, on 8.6.2010 along with dri letter dated 18.5.2010, that the dri chennai has investigated a case of 12.590mt of red sander logs attempted to be smuggled by exportation under shipping bill no. 2247750 dated 9.4.2010 filed in the name of m/s. peacock granite agencies, madurai by the appellant. in the investigation, it was revealed that the iec code of the original exporter was misused for this fraudulent export. as per intelligence, the red sander logs were being smuggled to dubai by misdeclaring as ‘kashmir white granite tiles polished’ under the above shipping bill. the said cargo was stuffed in 20 feet container which were to sail to dubai on 13.4.2010. the said container was brought back on 24.3.2010 and examined wherein it was found that there were red sander logs in stead of ‘granites tiles’. a statement of mr. r.gurusamy, branch manager of the appellant firm was recorded wherein he stated that he has not obtained any authorisation letter from the exporter for undertaking the custom clearing work and he also admitted his mistake that he undertook the custom clearance work for these two export consignment i.e. first export already made in 2010 apart from present one without verifying the credential of the exporter and thus he has violated the custom house agent licence regulation, 2004. in view of the above, the licence of the appellant was suspended on 30.7.2010 by invoking the provisions of regulation 20(2) of the chalr, 2004. the said suspension was confirmed by an order dated 08.10.2010 and enquiry proceedings were initiated for the violation of regulation 13a, 13b, 13e, 13n and 13d and 19(8) of the chalr, 2004. the enquiry was conducted. the enquiry officer submitted his report on 15.4.2011 that the finding that the charges are ‘not proved.’ the enquiry report was forwarded to the appellant under regulation 22(6) of the chalr, 2004 and the appellant replied the same on 21.4.2011 with a request to drop the proceedings and restore their licence. thereafter, on 9.5.2011 their licence was revoked. the said order was challenged by the appellant before the hon'ble high court of bombay through writ petition no. 4229/11 and matter was remanded back to the commissioner of customs (general) for fresh consideration of the matter within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. thereafter, matter was heard and after concluding the hearings, the cha licence of the appellant was revoked and also ordered the forfeiture of the entire amount of security deposit. against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. on behalf of the appellant, shri prakash shah, advocate appeared before us and submitted that the commissioner has no power or jurisdiction to disagree with report of the enquiry officer when the enquiry officer (after holding the enquiry) has found that the charges are ‘not proved.’ in support of the contention, he has relied on the decision of cce vs. rajan virji and co. in customs appeal no. c/25/06 wherein the hon'ble high court of bombay on 27.1.2010 held that the commissioner of customs (gen) does not have power to disagree with the enquiry officer. he has fairly submitted that the slp filed by the respondent against the above judgement of the bombay high court has been admitted by the hon'ble apex court on 23.1.2012 but no stay has been granted.4. he further contended that the entire proceedings is beyond the period of limitation and without jurisdiction, as the commissioner of customs (gen) failed to issue show-cause notice within 90 days in terms of the regulation 22(1) of the chalr, 2004 as the respondent received the communication from the investigating officer on 18.5.2010 on the basis of such communication, the licence was suspended on 30.7.10 which was confirmed vide order dated 8.10.10. admittedly, the article of charges and ground of imputation were issued only on 30.11.10 which is beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from the receipt of the offence report. he further submitted that the respondent ought not to have disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer as the same are based on the material on record which clearly shows that the appellant had acted as cha and had taken due care and diligent and was nowhere involved in the alleged smuggling of red sander logs. he further submitted that although enquiry officer has held that charges against the appellant are ‘not proved’ and they have not contravened the provisions of the chalr, 2004 as the shipping bill was accepted by the preventive officer on the basis of the documents, invoice packing list and the certificate of the superintendent of central excise. the documents given by the exporter contains an authorisation and it is the second consignment of the same exporter was dealt by the appellant and no dispute has been raised with regard to the first consignment. he finally submitted that the commissioner of custom (gen) himself hold in the case of standard shipping agency, wherein the enquiry officer in his enquiry report has observed that the charges were ‘not proved’ and after considering the report of the enquiry officer, the commissioner of customs (gen) concluded that the cha has violated the regulations and charges have been proved but finally, he held that the cha licence was under suspension for more than 11 months and therefore, he exercises his power and ordered for withdrawal of suspension of cha licence subject to for forfeiture of entire security deposit. the appellants are to be treated similarly. he also relied on the decision of vipul p. joshi vs. cce in order no. a/576/2011/cstb/c-i dated 20.12.11, adarsh clearing agency in appeal no. 71 and 485/2009, vinod thomar 2011 (272) elt 564, sainath clearing agency 2011 (269) elt 106 and ss clearing and forwarding 2011 (263) elt 353. 5. on the other hand, the ar strongly opposes the contention raised by the ld. advocate and submitted that in the case of delta logistics in writ petition 7122/11 dated 14.9.11 the hon'ble high court has referred the matter to the hon'ble chief justice on the issue whether the commissioner of customs (gen) can differ from the finding of the enquiry officer on the report submitted under clause 6 of the regulation 22 of the chalr, 2004. therefore the decision in the case of rajan virji is in jeopardy. he further submitted that the show-cause notice has been issued by dri, chennai on 12.10.10 to shri pratap ravaliya and to the appellants also and the articles of charges and grounds of imputation were issued on 30.11.10 and therefore the proceedings has been initiated within 90 days as prescribed under clause 22(1) of the chalr, 2004. he further submitted that the commissioner of customs (gen) is the administrative head and he is to deal with the cha being an administrative head. therefore intervention of the working of the commissioner of customs (gen) dealing with cha is prerogative and exclusive power to maintain discipline in the customs area. therefore, after giving appropriate finding, he has revoked the appellant’s cha licence correctly. hence the impugned order is to be upheld. 6. heard both sides. 7. after considering the submissions of both sides, in this case we find that the communication was received by the commissioner of customs on the basis of the investigation conducted by the dri, chennai dated 18.5.10 and same was received by the respondent on 8.6.2010. on the basis of that communication/report, the licence of the appellant was suspended on 30.7.2010 under regulation 20(2) of the chalr, 2004. as per regulation 20(2) ibid, “the commissioner of customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a report from investigating authority, suspend the licence of a customs house agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated.” and regulation 22(1) which is reproduced hereunder:- “regulation 22. procedure for suspending or revoking licence under regulation 20. - (1) the commissioner of customs shall issue a notice in writing to the customs house agent within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said customs house agent to submit within thirty days, to the deputy commissioner of customs or assistant commissioner of customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the customs house agent desires to be heard in person by the said deputy commissioner of customs or assistant commissioner of customs. provided that the procedure prescribed in regulation 22 shall not apply in respect of the provisions contained in sub-regulation (2) to regulation 20.” 8. as per the said regulation, the commissioner of customs shall issue a notice in writing to the cha within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report stating the grounds on which it proposed to suspend or revoke the licence. admittedly, in this case on the basis of the report of dri, customs dated 18.5.2010 which was received in the offence of the commissioner of customs (gen) on 08.6.2010, the licence was suspended on 30.7.2010. therefore within 90 days from the said date i.e. 08.6.2010, the notice of article of charge/imputation of enquiry was to be issued to the appellant. admittedly, the articles of charge/imputation were to be issued to the appellant on 30.11.2010 which is beyond the period of 90 days as prescribed in the regulation 22(1) of chalr, 2004. 9. further, we observe that the decision in the case of cce vs. rajan virji and co (supra) of the hon'ble high court has been dealt by the hon'ble bombay high court in the case of delta logistics (supra) and same has been referred to the hon'ble chief justice for consideration afresh. therefore, we are not dealing with this issue in this case. 10. further, we find that the enquiry office has held in his enquiry report that charges against the appellant are ‘not proved.’ in the case standard shipping agency, wherein also the enquiry officer held that the charges have ‘not been proved’ and thereafter the commissioner of customs (gen) has observed as under:- “the inquiry officer in the inquiry report has observed that the two persons who admittedly have been forwarding the documents to the cha were the regular clients of the cha since 2003; that more than hundred consignments have been cleared by them, that accordingly the requirement of obtaining an authorization letter for each consignment does not arise and the same can be substituted by the declarations given by the importers for the bills of entry. i do not agree with the observation of the inquiry officer in this regard. i find that the inquiry officer in his inquiry report has rightly held that the cha has accepted the documents through intermediaries i.e. shri.jitin m shah and shri kaushal a shah and hence they have not met the actual importers. the cha's contention that it is regular business practice to accept business through middlemen, brokers and commission agents may be good for the trade, however, nothing stops the cha from interacting directly with the importers thereafter, once the documents are received for clearance. even for such business/work coming through a middleman, there is nothing in chalr which exempts cha from obtaining authorisation letters from the concerned importers. for that matter, it has not come on record that cha has produced even single authorisation from any importer. even it is assumed that cha has been doing business with these people for previous many years, still there is no exemption from obtaining authorisation from importer. nor is the case that cha has produced even one authorisation from any of the importer even for previous consignment. declaration on bill of entry can not and should not substitute authorisation from importer to cha to handle his work in custom houses. hence, i am of the opinion that the cha has violated reg. 13 (a) of chalr 2004”. and thereafter he passed the following order:- “in exercise of the powers conferred under regulation 22 (7) of the chalr, 2004, i hereby order the forfeiture of entire security amount deposited by the said cha with the customs department under the provisions of chalr, 2004. the cha licence be made operative after deposit of fresh security deposit as per chalr, 2004”. 11. in the case of vipul pranlal doshi (supra) this tribunal has considered the decision in the case of standard shipping agency and thereafter held that as under :- “in the case of standard shipping agency, wherein the inquiry officer has held that charges not proved but the commissioner of customs (general) has observed that the charges has been proved and thereafter he ordered for making operative of the cha licence after forfeiture of the security deposit. it is a discrimination with the appellant in this case and, therefore, relying on the decision of p.p. dutta (supra) and s.s. clearing and forwarding agency pvt. ltd., (supra) and in the case of standard shipping agency, we observe that the punishments suffered by the appellant is sufficient in facts and circumstances of the case. in the case of m/s. adarsh clearing agency in appeal no.c/440/10 on 28/11/2011 in similar facts, this tribunal has ordered for withdrawal of revocation of cha licence subject to forfeiture of security deposit of rs.10,000/-. accordingly, we order withdrawal of revocation of cha licence no.11/745 of the appellant subject to forfeiture of the security amount of rs.10,000/-.” thereafter this tribunal made operative the licence of the cha on forfeiture of security deposit of rs.10,000/-. 12. in view of this observation, we hold that when on similar charge in the case of standard shipping agency wherein the enquiry office hold that charge is ‘not proved’ and commissioner of customs (gen) considering the report and thereafter gave a finding that charges are proved and withdrew the order of suspension of cha licence and made operative the cha licence on forfeiture of security deposit. the appellant should be placed in similar situation. 13. following the above cited decisions, in this case also, we hold that the punishment suffered by the appellant is sufficient. accordingly, we withdraw the revocation of the cha licence no. 11/90 with immediate effect on forfeiture of entire security deposit. 14. appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Judgment:

Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

The appellant who is a custom house agent has challenged the order of revocation of CHA licence no. 11/90 dated 29.6.2011.

2. The facts of the case are that the information was received by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, on 8.6.2010 along with DRI letter dated 18.5.2010, that the DRI Chennai has investigated a case of 12.590MT of Red Sander Logs attempted to be smuggled by exportation under Shipping Bill no. 2247750 dated 9.4.2010 filed in the name of M/s. Peacock Granite Agencies, Madurai by the appellant. In the investigation, it was revealed that the IEC code of the original exporter was misused for this fraudulent export. As per intelligence, the Red Sander Logs were being smuggled to Dubai by misdeclaring as ‘Kashmir White Granite Tiles Polished’ under the above shipping bill. The said cargo was stuffed in 20 feet container which were to sail to Dubai on 13.4.2010. The said container was brought back on 24.3.2010 and examined wherein it was found that there were Red Sander Logs in stead of ‘granites tiles’. A statement of Mr. R.Gurusamy, Branch manager of the appellant firm was recorded wherein he stated that he has not obtained any authorisation letter from the exporter for undertaking the custom clearing work and he also admitted his mistake that he undertook the custom clearance work for these two export consignment i.e. first export already made in 2010 apart from present one without verifying the credential of the exporter and thus he has violated the Custom House Agent Licence Regulation, 2004. In view of the above, the licence of the appellant was suspended on 30.7.2010 by invoking the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. The said suspension was confirmed by an order dated 08.10.2010 and enquiry proceedings were initiated for the violation of Regulation 13A, 13B, 13E, 13N and 13D and 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004. The enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 15.4.2011 that the finding that the charges are ‘not proved.’ The enquiry report was forwarded to the appellant under Regulation 22(6) of the CHALR, 2004 and the appellant replied the same on 21.4.2011 with a request to drop the proceedings and restore their licence. Thereafter, on 9.5.2011 their licence was revoked. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay through writ petition no. 4229/11 and matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs (General) for fresh consideration of the matter within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. Thereafter, matter was heard and after concluding the hearings, the CHA licence of the appellant was revoked and also ordered the forfeiture of the entire amount of security deposit. Against the said order, the appellant is before us.

3. On behalf of the appellant, Shri Prakash Shah, advocate appeared before us and submitted that the Commissioner has no power or jurisdiction to disagree with report of the enquiry officer when the enquiry officer (after holding the enquiry) has found that the charges are ‘not proved.’ In support of the contention, he has relied on the decision of CCE vs. Rajan Virji and Co. in Customs appeal no. C/25/06 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on 27.1.2010 held that the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) does not have power to disagree with the enquiry officer. He has fairly submitted that the SLP filed by the respondent against the above judgement of the Bombay High Court has been admitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.1.2012 but no stay has been granted.4. He further contended that the entire proceedings is beyond the period of limitation and without jurisdiction, as the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) failed to issue show-cause notice within 90 days in terms of the Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR, 2004 as the respondent received the communication from the investigating officer on 18.5.2010 on the basis of such communication, the licence was suspended on 30.7.10 which was confirmed vide order dated 8.10.10. Admittedly, the article of charges and ground of imputation were issued only on 30.11.10 which is beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from the receipt of the offence report. He further submitted that the respondent ought not to have disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer as the same are based on the material on record which clearly shows that the appellant had acted as CHA and had taken due care and diligent and was nowhere involved in the alleged smuggling of Red Sander Logs. He further submitted that although enquiry officer has held that charges against the appellant are ‘not proved’ and they have not contravened the provisions of the CHALR, 2004 as the shipping bill was accepted by the preventive officer on the basis of the documents, invoice packing list and the certificate of the Superintendent of Central Excise. The documents given by the exporter contains an authorisation and it is the second consignment of the same exporter was dealt by the appellant and no dispute has been raised with regard to the first consignment. He finally submitted that the Commissioner of Custom (Gen) himself hold in the case of Standard Shipping Agency, wherein the enquiry officer in his enquiry report has observed that the charges were ‘not proved’ and after considering the report of the enquiry officer, the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) concluded that the CHA has violated the Regulations and charges have been proved but finally, he held that the CHA licence was under suspension for more than 11 months and therefore, he exercises his power and ordered for withdrawal of suspension of CHA licence subject to for forfeiture of entire security deposit. The appellants are to be treated similarly. He also relied on the decision of Vipul P. Joshi vs. CCE in order no. A/576/2011/CSTB/C-I dated 20.12.11, Adarsh Clearing Agency in appeal no. 71 and 485/2009, Vinod Thomar 2011 (272) ELT 564, Sainath Clearing Agency 2011 (269) ELT 106 and SS Clearing and Forwarding 2011 (263) ELT 353.

5. On the other hand, the AR strongly opposes the contention raised by the ld. advocate and submitted that in the case of Delta Logistics in writ petition 7122/11 dated 14.9.11 the Hon'ble High Court has referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the issue whether the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) can differ from the finding of the enquiry officer on the report submitted under Clause 6 of the Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. Therefore the decision in the case of Rajan Virji is in jeopardy. He further submitted that the show-cause notice has been issued by DRI, Chennai on 12.10.10 to Shri Pratap Ravaliya and to the appellants also and the articles of charges and grounds of imputation were issued on 30.11.10 and therefore the proceedings has been initiated within 90 days as prescribed under Clause 22(1) of the CHALR, 2004. He further submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) is the administrative head and he is to deal with the CHA being an administrative head. Therefore intervention of the working of the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) dealing with CHA is prerogative and exclusive power to maintain discipline in the customs area. Therefore, after giving appropriate finding, he has revoked the appellant’s CHA licence correctly. Hence the impugned order is to be upheld.

6. Heard both sides.

7. After considering the submissions of both sides, in this case we find that the communication was received by the Commissioner of Customs on the basis of the investigation conducted by the DRI, Chennai dated 18.5.10 and same was received by the respondent on 8.6.2010. On the basis of that communication/report, the licence of the appellant was suspended on 30.7.2010 under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. As per Regulation 20(2) ibid,

“the Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a report from investigating authority, suspend the licence of a Customs House Agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated.”

And Regulation 22(1) which is reproduced hereunder:-

“Regulation 22. Procedure for suspending or revoking licence under Regulation 20. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit within thirty days, to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs.

Provided that the procedure prescribed in regulation 22 shall not apply in respect of the provisions contained in sub-regulation (2) to regulation 20.”

8. As per the said regulation, the Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the CHA within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report stating the grounds on which it proposed to suspend or revoke the licence. Admittedly, in this case on the basis of the report of DRI, Customs dated 18.5.2010 which was received in the offence of the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) on 08.6.2010, the licence was suspended on 30.7.2010. Therefore within 90 days from the said date i.e. 08.6.2010, the notice of article of charge/imputation of enquiry was to be issued to the appellant. Admittedly, the articles of charge/imputation were to be issued to the appellant on 30.11.2010 which is beyond the period of 90 days as prescribed in the Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004.

9. Further, we observe that the decision in the case of CCE vs. Rajan Virji and Co (supra) of the Hon'ble High Court has been dealt by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Delta Logistics (supra) and same has been referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration afresh. Therefore, we are not dealing with this issue in this case.

10. Further, we find that the enquiry office has held in his enquiry report that charges against the appellant are ‘not proved.’ In the case Standard Shipping Agency, wherein also the enquiry officer held that the charges have ‘not been proved’ and thereafter the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) has observed as under:-

“The Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry report has observed that the two persons who admittedly have been forwarding the documents to the CHA were the regular clients of the CHA since 2003; that more than hundred consignments have been cleared by them, that accordingly the requirement of obtaining an authorization letter for each consignment does not arise and the same can be substituted by the declarations given by the importers for the bills of entry. I do not agree with the observation of the inquiry officer in this regard. I find that the inquiry officer in his inquiry report has rightly held that the CHA has accepted the documents through intermediaries i.e. Shri.Jitin M Shah and Shri Kaushal A Shah and hence they have not met the actual importers. The CHA's contention that it is regular business practice to accept business through middlemen, brokers and commission agents may be good for the trade, however, nothing stops the CHA from interacting directly with the importers thereafter, once the documents are received for clearance. Even for such business/work coming through a middleman, there is nothing in CHALR which exempts CHA from obtaining authorisation letters from the concerned importers. For that matter, it has not come on record that CHA has produced even single authorisation from any importer. Even it is assumed that CHA has been doing business with these people for previous many years, still there is no exemption from obtaining authorisation from importer. Nor is the case that CHA has produced even one authorisation from any of the importer even for previous consignment. Declaration on bill of entry can not and should not substitute authorisation from importer to CHA to handle his work in Custom Houses. Hence, I am of the opinion that the CHA has violated Reg. 13 (a) of CHALR 2004”.

And thereafter he passed the following order:-

“In exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 22 (7) of the CHALR, 2004, I hereby order the forfeiture of entire security amount deposited by the said CHA with the Customs Department under the provisions of CHALR, 2004. The CHA Licence be made operative after deposit of fresh Security Deposit as per CHALR, 2004”.

11. In the case of Vipul Pranlal Doshi (supra) this Tribunal has considered the decision in the case of Standard Shipping Agency and thereafter held that as under :-

“In the case of Standard Shipping Agency, wherein the Inquiry Officer has held that charges not proved but the Commissioner of Customs (General) has observed that the charges has been proved and thereafter he ordered for making operative of the CHA licence after forfeiture of the security deposit. It is a discrimination with the appellant in this case and, therefore, relying on the decision of P.P. Dutta (supra) and S.S. Clearing and Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and in the case of Standard Shipping Agency, we observe that the punishments suffered by the appellant is sufficient in facts and circumstances of the case.

In the case of M/s. Adarsh Clearing Agency in Appeal No.C/440/10 on 28/11/2011 in similar facts, this Tribunal has ordered for withdrawal of revocation of CHA licence subject to forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, we order withdrawal of revocation of CHA licence No.11/745 of the appellant subject to forfeiture of the security amount of Rs.10,000/-.”

Thereafter this Tribunal made operative the licence of the CHA on forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.10,000/-.

12. In view of this observation, we hold that when on similar charge in the case of Standard Shipping Agency wherein the enquiry office hold that charge is ‘not proved’ and Commissioner of Customs (Gen) considering the report and thereafter gave a finding that charges are proved and withdrew the order of suspension of CHA licence and made operative the CHA licence on forfeiture of security deposit. The appellant should be placed in similar situation.

13. Following the above cited decisions, in this case also, we hold that the punishment suffered by the appellant is sufficient. Accordingly, we withdraw the revocation of the CHA licence no. 11/90 with immediate effect on forfeiture of entire security deposit.

14. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.