Customs House Agents eligibility turns on circular-based equivalence and cannot be denied on a jurisdictional objection.

Passing the Customs House Agents examination under the 1984 Regulations did not, by itself, satisfy the later qualification regime, but candidates could be treated as eligible under the 2004 Regulations if they passed the additional prescribed subjects identified in Board circulars. The circulars also required eligible candidates to be granted licences without imposing an extraneous numerical restriction. A refusal based solely on the fact that the examination was passed in another Customs House jurisdiction was not a valid ground, because the relevant examination was conducted centrally and the later circulars governed eligibility. The licence rejection was therefore set aside and reconsideration was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether passing the examination under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 could satisfy the qualification requirement under Regulation 6(a) read with Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004; (ii) Whether rejection of the application on the ground that the examination was passed from another Customs House jurisdiction was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether passing the examination under Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 could satisfy the qualification requirement under Regulation 6(a) read with Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.

Analysis: Regulation 6(a) required the applicant to satisfy the prescribed educational and examination conditions. The Board's Circular No. 9/2010-Cus. clarified that candidates who had earlier passed the examination under Regulation 9 of the 1984 Regulations were required to qualify the additional subjects introduced under Regulation 8 of the 2004 Regulations, and on doing so were to be deemed to have passed the examination under the 2004 regime. The later Circular No. 25/2011-Cus. reiterated that eligible candidates should be granted licences and that no numerical restriction could be imposed.

Conclusion: The earlier examination could not by itself be treated as sufficient, but the applicant would be eligible if she qualified the additional subjects in terms of the Board's circulars.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the application on the ground that the examination was passed from another Customs House jurisdiction was sustainable.

Analysis: The examination under the relevant regulations was conducted by the Directorate General of Inspection, and the place from which the examination had been passed was not a valid basis to deny consideration for grant of licence. The impugned order also failed to apply the Board's later circular, which governed the eligibility determination.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction-based objection was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the licence application was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with the Board's circulars and the legal position noticed above.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Board's circulars deem successful candidates in the earlier customs house agents examination eligible upon passing the additional prescribed subjects, refusal of licence on an incorrect jurisdictional objection is unsustainable and the matter must be reconsidered de novo.

---