2017 (11) TMI 104 - HC - Customs

Inclusion of name of Mr.R.Nandanan as a G card holder in the Customs Broker Licence of the petitioner - Jurisdiction restriction - Held that - a person who is employed under a Customs Broker and who has passed the examination referred to sub-regulation 3 may, on his appointment under any other Customs Broker, with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, be exempted from passing of such examination - Thus, the rights of the petitioner are not fully foreclosed and even assuming that the identity card in Form-G issued to Mr.R.Nandanan on a earlier occasion while he was working in M/s. Green Channel is said to be an error, that cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the petitioner. Regulation 17(4) of the New Regulation, empowers the respondents to exempt the employee who has already passed such examination. The writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner s application for issuance of identity card in Form-G dated 25.05.2015 and 12.10.2015 and consider the same by applying Regulation 17(4) and pass appropriate orders on merits - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus for inclusion of a name in Customs Broker Licence. Interpretation of regulations regarding passing examinations for Customs Broker Licensing. Applicability of Regulation 17(4) for exemption from examination requirement. Comparison with previous legal judgments for similar cases.

Analysis:
The petitioner requested the court to direct the inclusion of a name in the Customs Broker Licence. The petitioner holds a valid license extended to Chennai and employed an individual who passed the required examination under the Old Regulation. The individual had a Form-G card while working with another agency in Chennai. Upon joining the petitioner, a request for a new Form-G card was made, but there was no response, leading to the court intervention.

The petitioner argued that passing examinations under different regulations should suffice for signing declarations at any customs station. The respondents claimed that the issuance of the previous Form-G card was an error and jurisdiction restrictions apply for licensing based on the area of operation. They referred to a circular emphasizing the necessity of passing examinations conducted by the Chennai Customs Commissionerate for working in Chennai.

Regulation 17 of the New Regulations was deemed relevant, with sub-regulation 3 requiring passing examinations within the jurisdiction of operation. However, sub-regulation 4 provided an exemption with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. This exemption clause empowered the respondents to exempt employees who had already passed the examination, allowing flexibility in licensing requirements.

The court referenced a Calcutta High Court case where passing examinations from different locations did not hinder licensing eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle, stating that passing the examination qualifies an individual for a license anywhere in India, regardless of the examination location. The court applied this legal precedent to the current case, emphasizing the importance of passing the examination over the examination location.

Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for the Form-G identity card and make a decision based on Regulation 17(4) within eight weeks. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal principles and precedents in determining licensing eligibility, ensuring fairness and consistency in licensing processes.