Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 590 - HC - CustomsWhether the respondents were required to give individual intimation to the petitioner with regard to oral examination held by them, for obtaining Customs House Agents License? Held that: - the petitioner would be governed by the 2004 Regulations, wherein, under Clause (1) of Regulation 8, the respondents were required to give her an individual, albeit, advance intimation. The reason why the petitioner would be governed by the 2004 Regulations is that, she sat for the written examination, when 2004 Regulations were in vogue. Therefore, the actions taken under the said Regulations would stand saved under the 2013 Regulations. This is evident, apart from anything else, upon a bare perusal of the preface to the 2013 Regulations - giving intimation to the petitioner for oral examinations held on 05.04.2013 and 06.04.2013 via circular dated 28.03.2013 was not in order, as 2013 Regulations were notified only on 21.06.2013 - The respondents were required to send an intimation "individually" to the applicants/examinees and in this case, the petitioner herein, with regard to the oral examinations, which were supposedly held on 05.04.2013 and 06.04.2013. The fact that the said procedure was not followed, persuades to hold that the impugned order is flawed in law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|