Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 231 - HC - CustomsRejection of application for fresh Customs House Agents License - Disqualification under Regulation 8 - whether the application of the petitioner No.1 for license under CHALR 2004 could have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner No.1 had cleared the examination under Regulation 9 of CHALR 1984 - Held that:- The 2004 regulations expressly save things done before framing of the said 2004 Regulations. There is nothing in the 2004 Regulations wherefrom it may be deducted that a person who has cleared the Customs House Clearing Agent’s examination under Regulation 9 of the 1984 Regulations would again be required to appear for an examination. It appears that the petitioner had a regular licence. However, this licence was in the name of the firm M/s Shipping Agency. It was the petitioner who was actually engaged in the work of clearance of goods through customs on behalf of the firm. It was the petitioner who appeared for the examination. The petitioner cannot be disqualified on the ground of not having cleared the examination under Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004. The licence of the petitioner has not been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has not cleared the examination under Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004, but also on the ground that on verification of the antecedents of the petitioner it was found that a charge-sheet had been issued under Sections 419/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code which did not support an unblemished record - There can be no doubt that a person guilty of commission of an offence may be debarred from licence. However, it is one thing to be charged with an offence and a different thing to be held guilty of actual commission of that offence. Chances of false implication cannot altogether be ruled out, particularly in a case like the present one, where family disputes have cropped up. It would, in my view, be totally arbitrary and against all norms of fair play to deprive a citizen of his right to carry on business in the absence of any verdict of a Court of law holding him guilty of a criminal offence. The petitioner had carried on business as clearing house agent. A licence had been issued to him. It is a case of continuance of business and/or deprivation of the right to carry on business - a person who has been carrying on business ought not to be prevented from carrying the business on the basis of allegations not proved in Court of law - impugned notice is set asie and quashed - Decided in favour of appellant.
|