2009 (9) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....renewal when the order was passed, the revocation would be applicable as and when the licence became operational on account of the renewal. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 6th July 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of the CHA licence. 3. The petition was heard by us yesterday i.e. 8th September 2009. We were of the view prima facie that the action of the respondent no. 2 in rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of the licence and for cancellation of the licence, was too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the use of old visiting card. We adjourned the matter for a day to enable the respondent to inform us whethe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by filing Writ Petition No. 3465 of 2005 in this court. The Writ Petition was allowed and the order was set aside by this court on the ground that it was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to Mr. Unnikrishnan. This court remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to Mr. Unnikrishnan. After remand, the respondent no. 2 again passed an order dated 6th July 2009 and refused the petitioner's application for renewal of the CHA licence. That order is impugned in this petition. In the mean while, respondent no. 2 also gave hearing to the petitioner on a show cause notice issued to it for revocation of the licence and by an order dated 20th May 2009 revoked the licence of the petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any intention of making any false representation was not accepted by respondent no. 2. In our opinion, the explanation offered by Mr. Unnikrishnan was a plausible explanation and there was no material on record, that for except giving of the visiting card to the respondent no. 2 himself at the time of hearing that the petitioner was using the visiting cards anywhere else and/or misrepresenting that they were still possessing CHA licence. In our view, giving of the visiting card to respondent no. 2 was even assuming if amounted to misconduct was too insignificant a thing warranting cancellation of the licence or its refusal of its renewal. 7. As regards the second ground, it may be noted that the statement allegedly recorded under Section....