2009 (11) TMI 190 - HC - Customs

Issuance of licence- the appellants and the writ petitioners is that they are engaged in the work of clearance of goods through Customs for the past several years and they are claiming that they have all passed the examination prescribed as per Regulation No. 9 of the customs House Agent Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 1984, which was framed under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the appellants/petitioners, regular licences are to be issued only to those persons, who are qualified as per the examinations referred to in Regulation 9 of 1984.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for the grant of Customs House Agent (CHA) licenses under the 1984 and 2004 Regulations.
2. The impact of the 2004 Regulations on candidates who passed examinations under the 1984 Regulations.
3. The legal interpretation of the preamble of the 2004 Regulations and its effect on the appellants' rights.
4. The applicability of judgments from other High Courts (Delhi and Punjab & Haryana) to the present case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for the Grant of CHA Licenses under the 1984 and 2004 Regulations:
The appellants argued that they had passed the examination under Regulation 9 of the 1984 CHALR and were thus entitled to licenses. However, the 2004 Regulations introduced new eligibility criteria and procedures, eliminating the issuance of temporary licenses and requiring candidates to pass a new examination with updated subjects.

2. Impact of the 2004 Regulations on Candidates Who Passed Examinations under the 1984 Regulations:
The appellants contended that the syllabus and subjects for the 1984 and 2004 examinations were nearly identical, and thus their qualifications should be recognized under the new regulations. However, the court found that the 2004 Regulations introduced significant changes, including new subjects such as online filing and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, passing the 1984 examination did not automatically qualify candidates under the 2004 Regulations.

3. Legal Interpretation of the Preamble of the 2004 Regulations:
The appellants argued that the preamble of the 2004 Regulations, which stated that actions taken or omitted before its implementation were saved, protected their rights. The court disagreed, stating that the preamble did not confer any vested rights to the appellants. The court emphasized that the eligibility criteria and examination requirements had changed, and the appellants had no statutory right to a license based on the old regulations.

4. Applicability of Judgments from Other High Courts:
The appellants cited judgments from the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, which had extended benefits to similarly placed candidates. The court noted that those cases involved applications invited under the old regulations before the 2004 Regulations came into force. In contrast, the present case involved applications invited in 2008, long after the 2004 Regulations were implemented. Therefore, the cited judgments were not applicable to the present case.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellants had no vested right to CHA licenses based on their qualifications under the 1984 Regulations. The new eligibility criteria and examination requirements under the 2004 Regulations were valid and applicable. The court affirmed the decision of the learned single judge, dismissing the writ petitions and writ appeals filed by the appellants. The court also emphasized that policy decisions taken by the government, such as changing eligibility criteria, could not be challenged unless proven to be unreasonable or arbitrary.

← Previous Next →