Customs house agent qualification rules cannot require a fresh examination after a later circular deletes the extra condition.

A candidate who had already passed the 1984 Customs House Agents examination could not be compelled to repeat qualification under the 2004 Licensing Regulations when a later circular, issued to implement binding Supreme Court precedent, removed the additional subject requirements and stated that such candidates need not reappear. The Court treated that circular as controlling and held that the Department could not insist on the deleted condition to deny consideration for a licence certificate. The contrary departmental stand was rejected because the later legal position had displaced the earlier objection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person who had passed the examination under the 1984 Customs House Agents regime was required to again qualify under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 for grant of licence certificate; (ii) whether the departmental stand could survive in view of the later circular issued to implement the Supreme Court's decision.

Issue (i): Whether a person who had passed the examination under the 1984 Customs House Agents regime was required to again qualify under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 for grant of licence certificate.

Analysis: The Court treated the earlier Supreme Court decision and the Board's later circular as controlling. The later circular deleted the additional subject requirements and stated that persons who had cleared the 1984 examination need not again appear for the 2004 examination. In that view, insistence on a fresh examination could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The requirement of a further examination under the 2004 Regulations was negatived, and the respondent remained entitled to consideration for the licence certificate.

Issue (ii): Whether the departmental stand could survive in view of the later circular issued to implement the Supreme Court's decision.

Analysis: The Court held that the subsequent circular had accepted and implemented the governing Supreme Court ruling, and therefore the contrary contention of the Revenue did not merit acceptance. The earlier decision relied on by the Department was also treated as having been rendered ineffective in the changed legal position.

Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the governing legal position entitled candidates who had already passed the earlier examination to consideration under the later regime without repeating the examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent authority, by a later circular issued to implement binding precedent, removes the requirement of a ed examination, the authority cannot insist upon compliance with the deleted condition to deny licence consideration.

---