2026 (1) TMI 1449 - HC - Customs

Right of F-card holders to represent before any Customs jurisdiction affirmed; territorial restriction set aside, compliance requirements remain.

F-card holders possess the entitlement to represent before any Customs jurisdiction; a communication imposing a territorial restriction on practice was ... Right of F-card holder to represent before any Customs jurisdiction - restriction on practice of F-card holder - Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Regulation 4(2) - compliance with deficiencies in licence application - HELD THAT:- Since it is an undisputed fact that Mr.G.Venkatesh having been issued with F-card at Coimbaore division is entitled to practice anywhere in India. Paragraph No.6 of the impugned communication, which restricts his practice to Coimbatore alone, has been issued without any authority under law, and therefore the said restriction found in paragraph No.6 of the impugned communication is set aside by this Court. Apart from the same, other deficiencies pointed out by the first respondent in the impugned communication remain unaltered, and the petitioner has also given an undertaking to comply with other deficiencies. Thus, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Issues: Whether paragraph No.6 of the impugned communication restricting an F-card holder to the issuing customs division and preventing him from representing the applicant for a customs broker licence in another customs jurisdiction is legally valid.Analysis: Regulation 4(2) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 prescribes that an application for a licence shall be made to the authority having jurisdiction over the area where the applicant intends to carry on business. The challenge concerns a restriction placed on an F-card holder's ability to represent a company outside the division where the F-card was issued. The respondents did not dispute that an F-card holder may represent interests across jurisdictions subject to CBLR, 2018, while requiring compliance with other identified deficiencies. The impugned paragraph imposes a categorical restriction confining practice to the issuing division which is not supported by the statutory framework and is therefore beyond the authority conferred by the Regulations.Conclusion: Paragraph No.6 of the impugned communication is set aside as being without authority under law; the remaining deficiencies identified in the communication continue to apply and the petitioner has undertaken to comply with them.