Recognition of multiple customs agents' associations upheld, with refusal not appealable under the Customs Act framework.

Regulation 25(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was construed as enabling, not restrictive, and did not limit recognition in a Customs Station to a single Customs House Agents' Association. The text and scheme of the Regulations showed no express bar on recognising more than one association, and any implied compulsion to join one association would raise freedom of association concerns. An order refusing recognition under Regulation 25(2) was also treated as outside the Customs Act, 1962 appellate framework, because that structure applies to adjudication orders and no appeal or revision was provided against such refusal. In the absence of a statutory appeal, writ jurisdiction remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Regulation 25(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 bars recognition of more than one Customs House Agents' Association in a Customs Station. (ii) Whether an order refusing recognition of an association under Regulation 25(2) is appealable under the Customs Act, 1962 so as to bar a writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether Regulation 25(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 bars recognition of more than one Customs House Agents' Association in a Customs Station.

Analysis: The provision was read according to its plain language. Regulation 25(1) contemplates consultation with a recognised association only for fixing rates, while Regulation 25(2) requires a Customs House Agent to enroll as a member only if there is an association registered in the Customs Station and recognised by the Commissioner. Nothing in the text, scheme, or object of the Regulations indicates a restriction to a single association. The provision was treated as enabling, not restrictive, and no statutory provision, regulation, notification, or guideline was shown to prohibit recognition of more than one association. Any compulsion to join a particular association would also trench upon the freedom to form associations.

Conclusion: Regulation 25(2) does not bar recognition of more than one Customs House Agents' Association in a Customs Station, and the refusal of recognition on that ground is unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether an order refusing recognition of an association under Regulation 25(2) is appealable under the Customs Act, 1962 so as to bar a writ petition.

Analysis: The appellate structure under Chapter XV of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to apply to orders of adjudication under the Act, not to an order passed under Regulation 25(2). The Regulations themselves provide appeals or revisions only in specified situations, and no appeal, revision, or suo motu modification power is provided against refusal of recognition under Regulation 25(2). In the absence of a statutory appeal, the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not appealable under the Customs Act, 1962, and the writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of recognition was quashed, and the customs authority was directed to grant recognition to the petitioner association and consult it under Regulation 25.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision that merely enables recognition or consultation with an association cannot be construed to restrict recognition to a single association unless such restriction is expressly provided by the text or scheme of the statute or regulations.

---