2010 (12) TMI 522 - AT - Customs

Regulation 16(2) of CHALR, 2004 read with Regulation 17(2) of CHALR, 84 - Customs House Agent Licence was in the name of the Firm which is proprietorship of Mr. Sivaji Basu. Mr. Sivaji Basu died on 26-1-2004 - Even for Private Limited Company to qualify as CHA the requisite examination is required to be passed as provided under Regulation - Licence regarding which the appellants seek validation is valid upto 2005 only - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement of an individual to carry on CHA business after the death of the original licensee.
2. Validity of a CHA License for a proprietorship concern converted into a Private Limited Company.
3. Requirement of passing the examination under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation for eligibility as a CHA.

Entitlement to Carry on CHA Business:
The case involved a dispute where the wife of a deceased proprietor of a CHA business sought permission to continue the business after his death. The Commissioner of Customs revoked the CHA License and partially forfeited the security deposit, stating that the wife was not entitled to carry on the business as per the regulations. The appellant contended that the proprietorship concern had been converted to a Private Limited Company before the proprietor's death, and therefore, the company should be allowed to operate as a CHA. However, it was revealed that the wife had not passed the required examination to qualify as a CHA, leading to the rejection of her request by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that the wife did not meet the necessary qualifications and that the License was valid only until 2005.

Validity of CHA License for Converted Company:
The Tribunal noted that the CHA License was issued in the name of the proprietorship firm, which ceased to exist upon the proprietor's death. Despite the conversion of the concern into a Private Limited Company, it was highlighted that the wife, who sought to continue the business, had not fulfilled the educational and examination requirements mandated by the regulations. The Tribunal emphasized that even for a Private Limited Company to operate as a CHA, passing the requisite examination was mandatory. The Revenue argued that the License for the proprietorship concern was valid until 2005, and no request for review had been made thereafter. Consequently, the Tribunal found no flaw in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

Requirement of Passing Examination for CHA Eligibility:
The central issue revolved around the eligibility criteria for operating as a CHA, which necessitated passing an examination equivalent to a B.A. examination as per the regulations. The Tribunal highlighted that the wife did not meet this educational requirement and had not qualified the examination needed to become eligible as a CHA. It was emphasized that even for companies, including Private Limited Companies, compliance with the examination requirement was mandatory. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the non-fulfillment of these educational and regulatory prerequisites, reinforcing the importance of meeting the prescribed qualifications for engaging in CHA business.