2004 (8) TMI 117 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Regularization of temporary Custom House Agent Licence
2. Compliance with Regulation 9 examination requirements
3. Parity with other cases involving similar facts

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regularization of temporary Custom House Agent Licence:
The petitioner, M/s. Shine Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, to regularize its temporary Custom House Agent Licence issued on 20th November 2000. The temporary licence was initially valid for one year, and the petitioner claimed to have fulfilled all formalities for its regularization. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, NOIDA, turned down the request for regularization on 11th April 2002, though the validity of the temporary licence was extended until 19th May 2002. The petitioner's subsequent appeals were rejected by the Commissioner and Chief Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Meerut, leading to this writ petition.

2. Compliance with Regulation 9 examination requirements:
The petitioner argued that since one of its directors, Sri Subhash Tomar, had already qualified the Regulation 9 examination, the company should be entitled to a regular licence under Regulation 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a similar case where M/s. Narender Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. had its temporary licence regularized under similar circumstances. However, the respondents contended that Regulation 9 explicitly requires the holder of a temporary licence to qualify in the examination. The engagement of a qualified person does not exempt the temporary licence holder from this requirement. Regulation 18 allows such qualified persons to engage in work related to Customs clearance, but it does not substitute the need for the temporary licence holder to pass the examination.

3. Parity with other cases involving similar facts:
The petitioner sought similar treatment as given to M/s. Narender Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. The court, however, held that Article 14 does not apply to quasi-judicial or judicial orders. The Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh (1995) clarified that an order in favor of another person cannot be a ground for issuing a writ if the order is contrary to law. Each case must be decided on its own merits, and the High Court cannot compel authorities to repeat an illegality.

Judgment:
The court concluded that the scheme of the Regulations requires the holder of a temporary licence to qualify the Regulation 9 examination to be entitled to a regular licence. The engagement of a qualified person does not exempt the temporary licence holder from this requirement. The court dismissed the writ petition but directed respondent no. 4 to give the petitioner an opportunity to have any of its persons mentioned in the temporary licence to appear and qualify in the ensuing examination under Regulation 9.

← Previous Next →