TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of petitioner seeking Customs House Agents License, deeming them qualified under new regulations.</h1> <h3>Ravindra Kamalakant Shukla Versus Commr. of Cus. (Airport & Admn.)</h3> Ravindra Kamalakant Shukla Versus Commr. of Cus. (Airport & Admn.) - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 86 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of application for Customs House Agents Licence.2. Validity of examination passed under CHALR, 1984 for licence under CHALR, 2004.3. Principles of natural justice.Summary:Rejection of Application for Customs House Agents Licence:The petitioners challenged the order dated 12/16th May, 2011, rejecting their application for a Customs House Agents Licence (CHA Licence) in response to Public Notice No. 81/2010. The rejection was based on the fact that the petitioners were qualified u/s 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR, 1984) from the Mumbai Commissionerate and not from the Calcutta Commissionerate.Validity of Examination Passed under CHALR, 1984 for Licence under CHALR, 2004:The primary issue was whether an applicant who passed the examination under Regulation 9 of CHALR, 1984, could be deemed to have passed the examination under Regulation 8 of CHALR, 2004. The Court referred to a previous judgment which held that a temporary licence holder who passed the examination under Regulation 9 of CHALR, 1984, was not required to clear an examination under Regulation 8 of CHALR, 2004 for a permanent licence. The Supreme Court affirmed this view in Union of India & Anr. v. Sunil Kohli & Ors., stating that the 2004 regulations expressly save things done before their framing.Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioners contended that the rejection of Shukla's application was in violation of the principles of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court found that the distinction in the Commissionerate from which the examination was cleared had no bearing on the legal proposition that a person who passed under Regulation 9 of CHALR, 1984, is deemed to have passed under Regulation 8 of CHALR, 2004.Conclusion:The Court held that the impugned orders could not be sustained and were set aside. It was clarified that the petitioner, having passed the examination under Regulation 9 of CHALR, 1984, should be deemed to have passed under Regulation 8 of CHALR, 2004, irrespective of the Commissionerate. The application for the licence was to be disposed of within 60 days, and the petitioner was to be granted a licence if otherwise entitled.
TaxTMI 