9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s.Deccan Forwarding & Logistics India Private Limited, in terms of Regulation 15 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. 2. Heard Mr.G.Derrick Sam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The issue raised in the present writ petition is on interpretation of Regulation 15 of the Custom House Agents Licence (CHALR) 2004. Petitioner is a partnership concern and is a Custom House Agent duly licensed on 31.8.2005 bearing Licence No.R.651/CHA-Chennai and it is valid till 2015. The company was reconstituted into a limited company by name and style M/s.Deccan Forwarding & Logistics India Private Limited on 19.1.2012. On incorporation into a new compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner should comply with requirement under the 2004 Regulations. Insofar as other errors which required to be complied, the petitioner states that he will submit the required document and clarify the position. 5. The only grievance now appears to be on the interpretation of Regulation 15 and observation of the authority declining to accept the appointment of power of attorney Shri S.Suryanarayana. Regulation 15 under which application is made reads as follows:- REGULATION 15. Change in constitution of any firm or a company (1) In the case of any firm or a company, holding a licence under these regulations, any change in the constitution thereof shall be reported by such firm or company, as the case may be, to the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... All that the Assistant Commissioner states in the letter is that the said S. Suryanarayana is not a person qualified under Regulation 8 of the CHALR, 2004 and therefore, it is one of the reasons as to why the request for change of constitution cannot be considered unless the said Suryanarayana qualifies under 2004 Regulations. Proviso to Regulation 8 clearly states that examination of the applicant will not be necessary, if he has already passed the examination referred to in Regulation 8. Further, Regulation 15 only speaks about change in the constitution of the firm or company for which fresh application should be made. That cannot be confused with the eligibility of a particular candidate to be appointed as power of attorney agent if he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered for grant of licence. However, there was a significant difference in the schemes of the two sets of regulations inasmuch as while the 1984 Regulations postulated grant of temporary licence and prescribed holding of such licence as a condition of eligibility for appearing in the examination conducted for grant of regular licence, the 2004 Regulations do not envisage grant of temporary licence and possession of such licence is not sine qua non for participating in the process of grant of licence under Clause 9 of the 2004 Regulations. Of course, the applicant is required to clear the written as well as oral examinations to be held in terms of Clause 8 of those regulations. At the same time, the language of the opening paragraph of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be the cadre of Custom House Agents and limit the number of licences to be granted to the candidates, who successfully qualified the examinations conducted under the 1984 Regulations. The clarification issued by the Board vide Circular dated 10.06.2004 and the decision of the Commissioner to dump 563 applications received pursuant to Public Notice dated 20.06.2003 are contrary to the language of proviso to Clause 8 of the 2004 Regulations and the prefatory statement contained in those regulations and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon for denying licences to the appellants. The matter deserves to be considered from another angle. The Regulations framed by the Board under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act are in the nature of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of a candidate who qualified under 1984 Regulation, but was denied the grant of licence referring to the 2004 Regulation. The Apex Court clearly held that under the 2004 Regulations read with proviso to Clause 8(1), candidates who have already passed the examination under the 1984 Regulation should be considered for grant of licence under the 2004 Regulation. The reasoning given in the above quoted judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The POA in this case is qualified under the 1984 Regulation. 10. In the present case, there is yet another difference. The licence has already been issued and valid till 2015. It is only a case of reconstitution of the firm into a company. Therefore, while considering the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
