9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Width and scope of Regulation 16 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. 2. Validity of the impugned order rejecting the application for grant of licence and cancelling the temporary licence. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Width and Scope of Regulation 16 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 The Court examined the scope of Regulation 16, which deals with changes in the constitution of a firm holding a Customs House Agents Licence. Regulation 16 provides three contingencies: - Clause (1): A general provision applicable whenever there is a change in the constitution of a firm, which could be due to death, retirement, or insolvency of a partner. The firm must report this change to the Collector and make a fresh application for a licence within thirty days. - Clause (2): A specific provision for granting a licence to a firm that continues with the surviving partners after the death of a partner, provided the partnership deed allows for such continuation. - Clause (3): Another specific provision for granting a licence to a firm that changes its constitution by inducting an employee who has been with the firm for at least five years. The Court clarified that Clause (1) operates independently and is not controlled by Clauses (2) or (3). Clause (1) applies to any change in the constitution of a firm, whether due to death, retirement, or insolvency of a partner. Clauses (2) and (3) deal with specific scenarios and do not override the general provision in Clause (1). Issue 2: Validity of the Impugned Order The Court found that the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, erred in his interpretation of Regulation 16. The Collector's decision was based on the misinterpretation that Clause (1) is controlled by Clauses (2) and (3). The Court noted that the petitioner's case fell squarely under Clause (1) as it involved a change in the constitution of the firm due to the death of a partner and the induction of new partners, including the heir of the deceased partner and the son of an existing partner. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's application for a fresh licence was rejected on the grounds that it did not meet the conditions of Clauses (2) and (3). However, since Clause (1) is a general provision applicable to any change in the constitution of a firm, the petitioner's application should have been considered under this clause. The Court concluded that the impugned order was bad in law and should be quashed. The matter was remanded back to the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, for reconsideration of the petitioner's application for a licence according to the correct legal principles outlined in the judgment. The Court also directed the Collector to grant a temporary licence to the petitioner firm until a decision was made on the substantive application. Conclusion: The Court made the Rule absolute, quashing the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad, for a fresh decision. The Collector was directed to grant a temporary licence to the petitioner firm until the final decision on the application for a permanent licence. No order as to costs was made.
|
