2017 (10) TMI 37 - HC - Customs

Court Upholds Customs House Agent License Grant Decision, Emphasizes Vested Rights

The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Versus R. Chandrasekaran

The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Versus R. Chandrasekaran - ... Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 1984 vs. CHALR 2004.2. Legitimate expectation and vested rights under CHALR 1984.3. Validity and impact of Clause 9 of Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004.4. Precedential value of prior judgments and amendments.5. Implementation of Supreme Court decisions and subsequent circulars by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 1984 vs. CHALR 2004:The core issue revolves around whether the respondent, who passed the examination under the CHALR 1984, should be granted a license under the newer CHALR 2004. The appellants argued that the respondent must comply with the 2004 regulations, which included additional examination requirements. However, the respondent contended that his rights to obtain a license under the 1984 regulations should not be extinguished by the subsequent 2004 regulations.2. Legitimate Expectation and Vested Rights under CHALR 1984:The respondent argued that having passed the examination under CHALR 1984, he had a legitimate expectation to be granted a license. This argument was supported by precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors and Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd & Anr vs. State of Haryana & Ors, which held that changes in eligibility criteria should not undo previously acquired eligibility.3. Validity and Impact of Clause 9 of Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004:The appellants highlighted Clause 9 of Regulation 8 of CHALR 2004, which required individuals who passed the 1984 examination to pass an additional special examination. They argued that this clause had an overriding effect and was intended to upgrade the skills and competencies of applicants. However, the respondent and the writ court noted that the Supreme Court had not considered this clause in its earlier decisions, which were based on the legal position before the clause was introduced.4. Precedential Value of Prior Judgments and Amendments:Several judgments were referenced, including those from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the respondent's position. The writ court also considered decisions from the Madras High Court and Gujarat High Court that quashed the new regulations issued in 2004. The Bombay High Court had taken a different view, but the Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Kohli's case ultimately supported the respondent's claim.5. Implementation of Supreme Court Decisions and Subsequent Circulars by the Central Board of Excise and Customs:The Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Kohli's case led to the issuance of Circular No. 6/2013 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which stated that individuals who passed the examination under CHALR 1984 did not need to appear for additional examinations under CHALR 2004. This circular effectively nullified the requirement for additional qualifications, supporting the respondent's claim for a license.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the writ court's decision to direct the appellants to issue the necessary certificate granting the Customs House Agent License to the respondent under CHALR 2004, without requiring additional examinations. The court emphasized that the respondent's legitimate expectation and vested rights under CHALR 1984 should not be negated by subsequent regulations, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decisions and the Central Board's circular.