2018 (11) TMI 424 - HC - Customs

Renewal of CHA License - denial on the ground that the partner of the petitioner-Firm viz., E.Rajendran has not qualified the examination conducted by Chennai Customs House Agents as per the Board Circular No.42 of 2004 dated 10.06.2004 - Held that - There is no dispute to the fact that the sole proprietor of the petitioner-Firm viz., E.Rajendran has already passed the required examination conducted under Regulation 9 of the CHALR, 1984. The Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013, more particularly, Regulation 6, specifically exempts the persons who have already passed the examination conducted under Regulation 9 of the CHALR, 1984 and Regulation 8 of CHALR, 2004 from appearing for any further examination. There is no dispute to the fact that as per Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation (CBLR) 2013, the sole proprietor of the petitioner who has admittedly undergone the examination successfully, under Regulation 9 of the CHALR 1984, is not required to appear for any further examination. In other words, the qualification already acquired by the sole proprietor of the petitioner holds good even as on today and therefore, with that qualification, the petitioner-Firm is entitled to get the renewal. This Court has already considered the identical issues and also the scope of the said Circular in the case of M/S. MAVIN CLEARING & FORWARDING SERVICES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (CHA-UNIT) 2017 (11) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that Regulation 17(4) of the New Regulation, empowers the respondents to exempt the employee who has already passed such examination. - the decision of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and in favor of the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to succeed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to refusal of Custom House Agent Licence renewal based on partner's qualification under Board Circular No.42 of 2004.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the refusal to renew the Custom House Agent Licence due to the partner's qualification issue. The partner, E.Rajendran, had passed the examination under Regulation 9 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The petitioner-Firm applied for renewal and included another qualified individual as an authorized signatory. However, when E.Rajendran requested to be the sole signatory, the request was rejected based on not being qualified from Chennai Custom House as per the Circular.

The respondents admitted that Regulation 6 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013, exempts those who passed the exam under Regulation 9 of CHALR, 1984, from further exams. The petitioner argued that the rejection was unjustified as E.Rajendran was exempt under Regulation 6. The standing counsel for the respondents cited Circular No.42 of 2004 but acknowledged the relevance of a previous court decision.

The court noted that E.Rajendran had already passed the required exam under Regulation 9 of CHALR, 1984. Regulation 6 of CBLR, 2013, exempts such individuals from further exams. Refusal based on the Circular was deemed unsustainable. The court referenced a previous decision and analyzed the scope of the Circular, emphasizing that the petitioner was entitled to renewal based on existing qualifications.

The court further elaborated on Regulation 17(4) and referred to a Calcutta High Court case, affirming that passing the exam qualifies for a license anywhere in India. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application within a specified timeline based on Regulation 6 of CBLR, 2013. The decision was in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order.