JUDGMENT KRISHNA KUMAR, MEMBER, (J)- Heard both sides.
2 The issues involved is whether the volume of work handled at Kandia and the volume of work handled at Mumbai are to be taken to fulfill the norms laid down under the Public Notice.
3 The 'learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellant was granted a CMA licence at Kandia and Mumbai on the regular basis. By a show-cause notice dated 3.7.2000,the appellants were called upon a show-cause as to why the licence granted to them at Kandia should not be revoked on the ground that the appellants have failed to fulfill the norms laid down under the Public Notice for grant of CHA licence. Thereafter, by an order dated 15.1.2001, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandia revoked the licence on the ground that the appellants have not handled the volume of work at Kandia as required under the Public Notice. On the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandia, the licence. Issued at" Mumbai Customs was also revoked. ...
4. The matter has been referred to the Larger Bench in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai by the order dated 3.2.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 180/2004. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that due to cyclone at Kandia Port, the licence granted for the Port remained un- operational and the major work of Kandia Port was transferred to Mumbai Port for handling. If during the relevant period, the volume of work handled by the appellant at Kandia as well as Mumbai Port are taken together, it will appear that the appellant has handled more volume of work than required under the Public Notice. The volume of work handled at Mumbai Port is to be taken into consideration for fulfilment of the norms at Kandia Port. To support the contention, he relied on the decision of Amish Shipping agency v. CCE & C, Pune, reported in 2001 (130) ELT 330 (Tri-Mum), wherein the Tribunal has held that total documents handled at all permitted customs stations should be taken for qualifying standard laid down in Public Notices.
5. it is an accepted position that due to cyclone at Kandla Port, the appellant had no option but to suspend his operation and the work at Kandla port was diverted to Mumbai Port where he handled much more work than required at Mumbai Port and the same is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fulfilling of the norms laid down in the Public Notices. The Id. JDR has, however, rebutted the contention of the counsel and submitted that Kandla Port became operational within 15 days.
6. We are full agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Amish Shipping Agency v. CCE & C, Pune. We do not find any bar in the Public Notices that the work handled at one permitted station cannot be taken into account for fulfilment of the norms laid down therein. The appeals filed by the appellant are accordingly allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on 8.4.2005)