9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 37 - HC - CustomsGrant of CHA license - Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agent Licence Regulation 2004 - Central Board of Excise and Customs made a new Regulation for Customs House Agents in the year 2004 in short referred to as CHALR 2004. Regulation 9 of CHALR 2004 prescribes passing of an examination in terms of Regulation 8 of the new Regulation 2004 as a condition precedent for grant of licence under Regulation 9 of CHALR 2004 - Subsequent to the formulation of CHALR 2004 appellants denied grant of licence on the grounds inter alia that the respondent cleared the examination only under the 1984 Regulation. Held that - Circular No.6/2013-Cus. dated 6.2.2013 makes it abundantly clear that those who have passed the examination under 1984 Scheme need not have to appear for examination again for CHALR 2004 - When Government of India have decided to delete para 8.1 and 8.2 of Circular No.9/2010-Customs dated 8.4.2010 with an implication that Customs shall no longer insist that persons who have passed the examination under the 1984 Regulations have to additionally qualify in the subjects contained in the said circular dated 06.02.2013 contentions to the contra made in the instant writ appeal do not merit any consideration - denial of grant of license withheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 1984 vs. CHALR 2004. 2. Legitimate expectation and vested rights under CHALR 1984. 3. Validity and impact of Clause 9 of Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004. 4. Precedential value of prior judgments and amendments. 5. Implementation of Supreme Court decisions and subsequent circulars by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 1984 vs. CHALR 2004: The core issue revolves around whether the respondent, who passed the examination under the CHALR 1984, should be granted a license under the newer CHALR 2004. The appellants argued that the respondent must comply with the 2004 regulations, which included additional examination requirements. However, the respondent contended that his rights to obtain a license under the 1984 regulations should not be extinguished by the subsequent 2004 regulations. 2. Legitimate Expectation and Vested Rights under CHALR 1984: The respondent argued that having passed the examination under CHALR 1984, he had a legitimate expectation to be granted a license. This argument was supported by precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors and Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd & Anr vs. State of Haryana & Ors, which held that changes in eligibility criteria should not undo previously acquired eligibility. 3. Validity and Impact of Clause 9 of Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004: The appellants highlighted Clause 9 of Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004, which required individuals who passed the 1984 examination to pass an additional special examination. They argued that this clause had an overriding effect and was intended to upgrade the skills and competencies of applicants. However, the respondent and the writ court noted that the Supreme Court had not considered this clause in its earlier decisions, which were based on the legal position before the clause was introduced. 4. Precedential Value of Prior Judgments and Amendments: Several judgments were referenced, including those from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the respondent's position. The writ court also considered decisions from the Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court that quashed the new regulations issued in 2004. The Bombay High Court had taken a different view, but the Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Kohli's case ultimately supported the respondent's claim. 5. Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions and Subsequent Circulars by the Central Board of Excise and Customs: The Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Kohli's case led to the issuance of Circular No. 6/2013 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which stated that individuals who passed the examination under CHALR 1984 did not need to appear for additional examinations under CHALR 2004. This circular effectively nullified the requirement for additional qualifications, supporting the respondent's claim for a license. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the writ court's decision to direct the appellants to issue the necessary certificate granting the Customs House Agent License to the respondent under CHALR 2004, without requiring additional examinations. The court emphasized that the respondent's legitimate expectation and vested rights under CHALR 1984 should not be negated by subsequent regulations, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decisions and the Central Board's circular.
|
