Per G.R. Sharma :

This is an appeal against denial of renewal of CHA licence of the appellants.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants applied for renewal of CHA licence. It was found that the appellants had not complied with the requirement of Public Notice No. 33/96 dt. 5.7.96. This Public Notice was issued by the Collectorate in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 12 (2) (a) of the Customs House Agent Licence Regulation, 1984. This Public Notice inter alia requires (1)500 documents per year, (2) clearance of shipment of 5000 packages per year (3) clearance of shipment of packages of value not less than Rs. 50 lakhs. The performance of the appellant during the year 1996 was that the number documents cleared 27, number of packages handled 468 and the FOB value of the goods was Rs. 38.03 lakhs. During the year 1997, the performance of the appellant was that 15 shipping bills, 443 packages handled and FOB value of the goods cleared was Rs. 28.85 lakhs. The authorities below did not renew the licence of the Customs House Agent and hence the appeal before us.

3. Arguing the case for the appellant, Shri Rahul Chauhan, Id. Advocate submits that the facts are stated in the appeal. He submits that the Commissioner had discriminated against the appellant inasmuch as the norms set out by the Public Notice No. 33/96 dt. 5.7.96 were discriminatory in nature inasmuch as the norms fixed by the Bombay Commissionerate as well as other Commissionerates are less than those fixed by Delhi Customs. He submits that the norms fixed by the Delhi Customs were without any rationale; that the volume of the work and the norms set out by the Bombay Customs are nominal. The department argued that the target to be achieved in terms of business when maintained per year did not mean each year; that even if the business achieved during particular year may be less but if the overall business during the total licence period of five years fulfilled the target then the licence should have been renewed. It was argued by the Counsel that during the past five years the business undertaken by the appellant was Rs. 5 crores which was much more than the limit set out for the purpose. It was also submitted that the appellant had been in business for the last 92 years and, therefore if the business was less in a particular year, he should not have been deprived of his livelihood. He, therefore prays that the appeal may be allowed.

4. ShriRajeevTandon, Id. SDR opposes the request and submits that the norms are fixed by each Commissionerate; that the Customs House Agent Regulation 12 (2) (a) empowers the Commissioner to set out the norms for CHA licence. Ld. SDR submits that when performance of the appellant was examined in terms of those norms it was found much below. He submits that since the appellant had not performed well, therefore, the licence has rightly not been renewed. He therefore prays that the appeal may be rejected.'

5. Heard the rival submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we note that Regulation 12 (2) (a) gives the power to the Commissioner to set out the norms for renewal of the licence of CHA. Accordingly, the Commissioner issued Public Notice No. 33/96 dt. 7.5.96 prescribing the performance norms. We have perused the performance of the appellant as brought out in the impugned order. We find that the performance was not upto the mark. Since the performance was not upto the mark, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner who refused to renew the licence. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.