Customs House Agent licensing: no bar on authorisation at multiple stations, and reasoned orders are required.

A permanent Customs House Agent licence could not be refused merely because the applicant already held a licence at another customs station; neither the statute nor the regulations imposed such a bar, and departmental instructions indicated that prior authorisation at one station did not require deletion before seeking approval at another. The rejection was also unsustainable because it was a non-speaking order that gave no reasons, even though licensing decisions affecting entitlement had to be reasoned. The refusal of the permanent licence was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a permanent Customs House Agent licence could be denied on the ground that the applicant already held a licence at another customs station. (ii) Whether the order rejecting the request for a permanent licence was unsustainable for want of reasons.

Issue (i): Whether a permanent Customs House Agent licence could be denied on the ground that the applicant already held a licence at another customs station.

Analysis: The applicant had already been functioning at one station and had been permitted to work at Bangalore under a temporary licence. The refusal of a permanent licence was based on the premise that two licences at two different places were impermissible. No warrant for such an embargo was found in the statute or the regulations. The recorded departmental instructions also indicated that a Customs House Agent already holding a regular licence at one station need not delete his name there before seeking authorisation at another station, and that the scheme did not require such a restriction.

Conclusion: The denial of the permanent licence on the ground of holding another licence was unjustified and is held against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the order rejecting the request for a permanent licence was unsustainable for want of reasons.

Analysis: The impugned order did not disclose any reason for rejecting the claim. A rejection affecting entitlement under the licensing regime had to be supported by reasons, particularly when the applicant was otherwise found to have been functioning without irregularity. The absence of reasons showed that the decision was not a reasoned disposal.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable as a non-speaking order and is held against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of the permanent Customs House Agent licence was set aside and the applicant's appeal succeeded.

---