1. Appeal under Section 81 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Cochin and grant a gold dealer's licence.
2. This is an appeal against Order No. XVII/7/24/82 GC. POL dated 27.11.1982 of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, rejecting an, application of the appellant for a gold dealer's licence at Trivandrum, under Rule 2(f) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. When the case was called out, neither the appellant nor a representative on his behalf was present. Considering the nature of the case, we proceed to deal with it in the light of the documents already on record.
3. The appellant urges that he is a repatriate from Ceylon and he is therefore governed by Rule 2(f)(d) of the aforesaid Rules. He claims that he was in the jewellery trade with his father for more than three years; "he was a defacto partner in the jewellery shop owned by his father in Sri Lanka, where the appellant had learned the trade". The exemption from the provisions of Rule 2(f) is applicable to a repatriate who has been a dealer outside India. Proviso (d) to Rule 2(f) refers to: a person of Indian origin who has been a dealer outside India for not less than three years prior to his representation and who had to close his business and repatriate to India.
On his own showing, the appellant was not a dealer himself. It would seem that he was working in his father's shop or assisting his fat her in his shop which is not the same as being a dealer in one's own right.
4. Another point taken by the appellant is that he applied for a licence in late December, 1981. In considering the turnover of licensed dealers at Trivandrum, the Additional Collector has taken into account that during the years 1978 to 1980; as the application itself was for the year 1982, the years that ought to have been taken into account are 1979 to 1981. Rule 2(f)(ii) refers to the demand for ornaments which is likely to arise in the city concerned for a period of three years preceding the year in which such an application for issue of licence has been made. A literal interpretation of these words would justify the action of the Additional Collector in considering the turnover for the years 1978 to 1980, as the application for licence was made in the year 1981. From a practical point of view also the turnover during the year of application will not normally be available for the Department in that year itself. The action of the Additional Collector is thus correct in law. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal; it is accordingly dismissed.