2013 (10) TMI 899 - HC - Customs

Temporary licence as Customs House Agent - Validity of Regulation 8(5) - Held that - system of issuing temporary licence was dispensed with by virtue of 2004 Regulations. Under the new Regulations qualified applicants are given chance to clear the examination upto a maximum period of 7 years. The stipulation is with respect to new applicants who apply for licence after commencement of the 2004 Regulations. At the same time, a restriction was imposed through the new Regulations for continuance of the temporary licences already granted. Continuance of such temporary licence will be permitted only if the person concerned qualify the examination within the said period. The applicants for fresh licence are distinct and different class from persons already holding temporary licence under the erstwhile Regulations - Once the rule making authorities have decided to dispense with the practice of granting temporary licence, it is only reasonable that those persons already holding such licences were given chance for renewal of such temporary licences upto a maximum period of two years, without the licences qualifying the requisite examinations as required in the case of persons seeking licence under the new Regulations. Merely because the petitioners were granted with a temporary licence, they cannot seek continuation even after its expiry without achieving the prescribed qualification under the changed Regulations - Decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of Regulation 8(5) under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations challenged for being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner company was issued a temporary license as a Customs House Agent under the Regulations. The validity of the license was extended up to a certain date, and the petitioner was required to pass a written and oral examination within two years from the date of issuance. The petitioner challenged the validity of Regulation 8(5) on the grounds of discrimination, as it provided a shorter period for holders of temporary licenses compared to applicants under Regulation 8(4, who were allowed seven years to pass the examination.

The petitioner's representative failed to pass the examination within the stipulated time frame, leading to the expiration of the temporary license. The petitioner contended that the regulation was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents argued that the provision for temporary licenses was omitted in the 2004 Regulations, and applicants under different regulations formed distinct categories, justifying the differing time frames for passing the examination.

The court noted that the system of issuing temporary licenses was discontinued under the new Regulations, and applicants under the old and new regulations were considered different classes. The court held that those holding temporary licenses under the old regulations were given a reasonable period for renewal, contingent upon passing the examination. The court found no grounds to sustain the challenges against Regulation 8(5) and upheld the decision not to renew the license due to the representative's failure to qualify the examination.

Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted the liberty to apply for a fresh license under the new Regulations if the authorized representative qualified the examination within the stipulated time frame, irrespective of the expiration of the temporary license.