Customs House Agent licensing exam equivalence bars fresh examination under the later regulations where the earlier test was already passed.

A Customs House Agent licence application could not be rejected merely because the applicant had passed the examination under the 1984 Regulations rather than Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents' Licensing Regulations, 2004. The later regulatory regime under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 superseded the 1984 Regulations but preserved things already done under the earlier regime, and the examination requirements were treated as substantially equivalent. A candidate who had already satisfied the earlier examination requirement was not required to take a fresh examination under the 2004 Regulations. The refusal to issue the licence on that ground was unsustainable, and the licence was directed to be issued subject to formalities.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Customs House Agent licence application under the 2004 Regulations could be rejected on the ground that the applicant had passed the examination under the 1984 Regulations and not the examination under Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents' Licensing Regulations, 2004.

Analysis: The licensing regime under Section 146(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was restructured by the Customs House Agents' Licensing Regulations, 2004, which superseded the 1984 Regulations while saving things already done under the earlier regime. The examination prescribed under the 2004 Regulations was held to be substantially the same as the examination under the 1984 Regulations, and the earlier examination was treated as sufficient compliance for the purpose of entitlement to licence under the new regime. The Court followed the earlier view that a person who had already passed the examination under the 1984 Regulations was not required to undergo a fresh examination under Regulation 8 of the 2004 Regulations, and relied on the Supreme Court's affirmation of that view.

Conclusion: The rejection of the licence application on the ground of non-passing of Regulation 8 of the 2004 Regulations was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to issuance of the licence without insisting on a fresh examination.

Final Conclusion: The writ application succeeded and the impugned refusal to grant the customs house agents licence was set aside, with consequential direction to issue the licence subject to formalities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later regulatory regime supersedes an earlier one but the two examination requirements are materially equivalent and the earlier regime is saved for things already done, a candidate who has already passed the earlier examination cannot be compelled to repeat the examination under the later regulations.

---