9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether persons with a license under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1965 need to apply for a new license under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. Analysis: The High Court at Calcutta reconsidered a matter where the respondents sought to recall an order passed in favor of the writ petitioners due to their absence during the initial hearing. The central issue revolved around whether individuals holding licenses under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1965 were obligated to reapply for licenses under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The petitioner-firm, originally constituted by two individuals, had undergone changes due to the death of one partner and the induction of another. The firm sought to include the new partner's name in the license, but the Customs Authorities rejected the application, leading to the writ petition. The Customs Authorities argued that under the 1984 Regulations, every individual, regardless of holding a license, must pass an examination before working for the firm. They also cited pending adjudication before the Appellate Court, contending that only a temporary license had been granted as interim relief. However, the Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing Regulation 26 of the 1984 Regulations, which deems actions under the 1965 Regulations as compliant with the 1984 Regulations. The Court highlighted that existing license holders were not required to reapply or undergo examinations under Regulation 9. The Court dismissed the Customs Authorities' contentions, stating that the issue pending before the Appellate Court did not relate to the current case. Consequently, the Court upheld the earlier order in favor of the petitioners, directing the inclusion of the new partner's name in the firm's license. However, the Court clarified that the names of all existing partners could not be included, as one partner did not hold a license. The Court ordered the inclusion of the new partner's name within a specified timeframe and granted a stay of operation for ten days. Additionally, no costs were awarded, and all parties were instructed to act on the Court's order.
|
