<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (11) TMI 190 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76163</link>
    <description>A pass under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 did not create an accrued right to obtain a licence after the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 came into force. The 2004 regime changed the eligibility criteria and syllabus, so licensing had to satisfy the requirements then in force. The savings language in the 2004 Regulations and Section 159-A of the Customs Act, 1962 protected only accrued rights, liabilities, and proceedings, not a mere expectation or liberty to apply. Vested right, legitimate expectation, and promissory estoppel could not override the statutory scheme, and no parity or licence entitlement arose from the old examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 190 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76163</link>
      <description>A pass under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 did not create an accrued right to obtain a licence after the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 came into force. The 2004 regime changed the eligibility criteria and syllabus, so licensing had to satisfy the requirements then in force. The savings language in the 2004 Regulations and Section 159-A of the Customs Act, 1962 protected only accrued rights, liabilities, and proceedings, not a mere expectation or liberty to apply. Vested right, legitimate expectation, and promissory estoppel could not override the statutory scheme, and no parity or licence entitlement arose from the old examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>