1993 (6) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 1965 could be called upon to apply anew for a fresh licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. 3. The facts of this case briefly are that the petitioner-firm was originally constituted by one K.C. Mullick and P.N. Mullick. Both K.C. Mullick and P.N. Mullick were licensed to carry on business as Customs House Clearing Agents. Kishore Mullick being petitioner No. 2 was inducted into the firm. In 1979 an 'A' Class licence was granted to Kishore Mullick a copy of which has been annexed to the petition. The licence was renewed from time to time. The licence, granted to the firm under the 1965 Regulations, originally showed K.C. Mullick and P.N. Mullick as the persons authorised to transact business as Customs House .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2's name to be incorporated in the licence as an authorised person. 5. The submissions of the Customs Authorities are not acceptable to this Court. Regulation 26 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 which repeals 1965 Regulations provides, "Notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1965, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of these regulations." 6. Therefore, the grant of licence under the 1965 Regulations to Kishore Mullick would be deemed to have been taken or done under the 1984 Regulations. There is nothing in the Regulations which shows that licence-holders under the 1965 Regulations would be r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learing Agents on behalf of the petitioner No. 1. 9. It may, however, be noted that the earlier order dated 20th April, 1993, in so far as it directed the incorporation of the names of all the existing partners of the petitioner No. 1, could not stand. It is the admitted case that the present existing partners of the petitioner No. 1 include one Amalesh Mullick who is not a holder of licence either under the 1965 Regulations or under 1984 Regulations. The name of Kishore Mullick, however, will be incorporated within 10 days from the date of receipt of the signed copy of this Dictated order. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents prayed for stay of operation of this order. There .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X