TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted under Regulation 9 of the CHALR, 1984 and Regulation 8 of CHALR, 2004 from appearing for any further examination. There is no dispute to the fact that as per Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation (CBLR) 2013, the sole proprietor of the petitioner who has admittedly undergone the examination successfully, under Regulation 9 of the CHALR 1984, is not required to appear for any further examination. In other words, the qualification already acquired by the sole proprietor of the petitioner holds good even as on today and therefore, with that qualification, the petitioner-Firm is entitled to get the renewal. This Court has already considered the identical issues and also the scope of the said Circular in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 9 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, seeking permission for transacting their business in Tuticorin Customs and the same has been accepted. The licence has also been extended to Cochin and Mumbai. The petitioner-Firm made an application on 25.12.2015 for renewal of the licence showing that the said E.Rajendran is the sole Power of Attorney Holder and that he had qualified the examination conducted under Regulation 9 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. At that time, one P.S.Ranganathan who qualified the examination conducted under Regulation 9 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , E.Rajendran has admittedly, passed the examination conducted under Regulation 9 of CHALR, 1984 and therefore, in view of the clarification given under CBLR, 2013, more particularly, Regulation 6, the sole proprietor is not required to take or appear for any further examination. Therefore, he contended that the rejection on that ground is unsustainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision made by this Court in WP.No.3909 of 2016 dated 09.10.2017 reported in 2018 (359) E.L.T. 506 (Mad.). 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the Board Circular No.42 of 2004 dated 10.06.2004 the rejection of the petitioner's request is justifiable. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid examination shall be declared by end May each year. 8. There is no dispute to the fact that as per Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation (CBLR) 2013, the sole proprietor of the petitioner who has admittedly undergone the examination successfully, under Regulation 9 of the CHALR 1984, is not required to appear for any further examination. In other words, the qualification already acquired by the sole proprietor of the petitioner holds good even as on today and therefore, with that qualification, the petitioner-Firm is entitled to get the renewal. The only reason stated for rejection of the petitioner's request in the impugned order is based on the Circular No.42 of 2004 dated 10.06.2004. This Court has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Broker and who has passed the examination referred to subregulation (3) may, on his appointment under any other Customs Broker, with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, be exempted from passing of such examination 11.In terms of the above regulation with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner and as of now the Commissioner, a person who is employed under a Customs Broker and who has passed the examination referred to sub-regulation 3 may, on his appointment under any other Customs Broker, with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, be exempted from passing of such examination. 12.Thus, the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Anr. V. Sunil Kohli Ors. The Court held that it makes little difference whether the examination is taken by one Commissionerate or the other. If the examination is cleared, the examinee qualifies for license anywhere in India subject to fulfillment of other requirement. 16.Though the above decision arises out of a rejection of Customs House Agents License, the legal Principles laid therein can very well be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 17.Thus, taking note of Regulation 17(4) and the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for issuance of identity card in Form-G dated 25.05.2015 and 12.10.2015 and consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
