ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The appellant in this case is a Customs House Agent licensee. He applied for renewal of his licence before the expiry of three years period. The authorities below did not renew his licence on the ground that the performance of the Customs House Agent was not up to the required number of documents handled and the business transacted.
2. Arguing the case of the appellants, Shri N. Singh, learned Consultant submitted that in terms of the Notification No. 72/94-Cus. (N.T.), dated 5-5-1994, the licence was required to be renewed for a period of five years. He submitted that appellants had got the licence in terms of this Notification and the validity period in the licence was only three years though, they were entitled to have this licence for a period of five years and the validity period should have been done up to five years. He submitted that since the licence was renewed on 31-12-1994, this licence should have been valid up to 31-12-1999 in terms of the Notification No. 21/94 cited above. The learned Consultant therefore, submitted that the licence was not required to be renewed before 31-12-1999 and that the authorities should have extended the validity period of the licence up to 31-12-1999. Instead they refused to renew the licence and therefore, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
3. Shri S. Sudarsan, learned DR reiterates the findings of the authorities below.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We note that the licence in this case was renewed up to 31-12-1994. We further note that Notification No. 55/94 authorised issue of licence/renewal thereof for a period of five years. Since the licence was issued on 31-12-1994 it should have been made valid for a period of 5 years up to 31-12-1999 which was not done. In view of this fact, we hold that the appellants were entitled to have the licence renewed up to 31-12-1999. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent that the licence was required to be extended up to 31-12-1999. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. Since it is 2000 and the licence of the appellants was not renewed in 1997, therefore, the appellants may be given period to work for about two years and their performance may be considered for further renewal after allowing this period. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.