1. The learned counsel for the respondent has, in support of his stand, placed reliance on several decisions oft his court and the High courts in which the notification in identical terms has been construed in the way as is suggested on behalf of the Corporation. Although Mr. Bobde, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced an argument, which on the face of it, appears to be attractive, I think that in view of the consistent interpretation of the notification which has been followed in the country, the question should not be reopened for fresh consideration. Accordingly, I agree that al these appeals should be dismissed but without costs.

Mohan, J.

2. These appeals can be dealt with by a common judgment since the question of law to be decided is one and the same. It is enough if we note the facts in Civil appeal No. 2599 of 1980.

3. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has its registered office at Jew Town in Mattancherry. It is engages in the business of clearing and forwarding at the Port of Cochin situated in Willingdon Island. It is authorised to transact its business at the Cochin Custom House under the terms of S.202 of the Sea Cus