9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 4 - HC - CustomsDenial of grant of licences to to act as Customs House Agent - change in procedures - Held that - As the 1984 Regulations postulated grant of temporary licence holding of which is a condition of eligibility for appearing in the examination conducted for grant of regular licence whereas the 2004 Regulations do not envisage grant of temporary licence for participating in the process of grant of licence but the applicant is required to clear the written as well as oral examinations to be held in terms of Clause 8 of the regulations. At the same time, the language of the opening paragraph of proviso to Clause 8(1)of 2004 Regulations make it clear that those who have already passed the examination are not required to appear in any further examination - thus the 2004 Regulations would operate prospectively and would not in any manner effect the eligibility and entitlement of those who had qualified the examination held under the 1984 Regulations for grant of licences to act as Custom House Agents - against department.
Issues:
Interpretation of regulations for grant of license to act as Customs House Agent under 1984 and 2004 Regulations; Validity of Public Notices dated 20.06.2003 and 24.02.2005; Consideration of Circular dated 10.06.2004 and dumping of applications; Retrospective effect of regulations under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act; Impact of 2004 Regulations on eligibility of candidates who passed examinations under 1984 Regulations; Correctness of High Court's decision in modifying the Single Judge's order. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved a detailed analysis of the regulations governing the grant of licenses to act as Customs House Agents under the 1984 and 2004 Regulations. The Supreme Court decision in Sunil Kohli and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors highlighted the similarities and differences between the two sets of regulations. It was noted that while the 1984 Regulations required a temporary license as a condition for appearing in the examination, the 2004 Regulations did not have such a provision. Candidates who had passed examinations under the 1984 Regulations were deemed eligible for licenses under the 2004 Regulations, subject to fulfilling other conditions. The High Court also examined the validity of Public Notices dated 20.06.2003 and 24.02.2005, noting that they did not reflect an assessment by the Commissioner before inviting license applications. The Court criticized the Division Bench for introducing the concept of vacancies and limiting the number of licenses based on candidates who passed examinations under the 1984 Regulations. The judgment emphasized that the Board's regulations operate prospectively and do not impact the eligibility of candidates who qualified under the 1984 Regulations. Furthermore, the Court considered a circular issued by the Board and the dumping of applications, concluding that they were contrary to the regulations and could not be used to deny licenses to applicants. The saving clause in the 2004 Regulations was highlighted as a clear indication that the rights of candidates who passed examinations under the 1984 Regulations were preserved. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to grant licenses to appellants based on the 2004 regulations, overturning the Division Bench's modification. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition in line with the Supreme Court decision and the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. The respondents did not contest the submission, leading to the writ petition being allowed without costs, and the connected motions were closed.
|
