TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eparted from the pattern followed for the preceding two decades and there was an allegedly disproportionate number of questions from Allied Acts. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that certain questions were erroneous or ambiguous and that the questions travelled beyond what could be reasonably expected of an aspirant. 3. Consequently, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the respondents to issue license to the petitioners to act as a custom broker or seeks relaxation in the six attempts limit that is provided in the Custom Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the question paper broke the pattern of the preceding past twenty years. She submits that previously the structure of the question paper focussed on 'major acts' that include the Customs Act, 1962, the IGST Act, 2017, the Excise Act 1944, the Finance Act, 1994 along with its rules, regulations, notifications, circulars, and policies. She submits that for the past 20 years, the majority of questions pertained to the major acts and only 5%-10% questions were asked from the Allied Acts. She submits that in the examination conducted on 18.03.2025 as m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 11. Secondly, the Custom Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 expressly contemplate the inclusion of questions from allied acts and other laws for the time being in force applicable to EXIM trade and the rules and regulations made under these Acts insofar as they are relevant to clearance of goods through Customs. In that regard, Regulation 6(7) of the Custom Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 lays down as follows: "(7) The examination may include questions on the following: (a) preparation of various kinds of bills of entry, bills of export, shipping bills, and other clearance documents; (b) arrival entry and clearance of vessels; (c) tariff classification and rates of duty; (d) determination of value of imported and export goods; (e) conversion of currency; (f) nature and description of documents to be filed with various kinds of bills of entry, shipping bills and other clearance documents; (g) procedure for assessment and payment of duty including refund of duty paid; (h) examination of goods at Customs Stations; (i) prohibitions on import and export; (j) bonding procedure an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k is a question-by-question academic adjudication of the examination paper which is not permissible. 14. In addition to this, the petitioners have also sought to impress upon this Court that some of the questions in the question paper were erroneous inasmuch as the said questions were not framed with proper precision which rendered the answers to those questions ambiguous. It has also been argued that these questions were out of syllabus and could not have been reasonably expected by the aspirants. For instance, the petitioners state that Question ID No. 149 asked "How many digits are there in a PCIN (Primary Cargo Identification Number) assigned by Customs to identify a cargo contained in single Transport Document mentioning Actual Buyer and Seller?". The correct alternative to the questions in the answer key was "18 digits". It is the petitioners' contention that the PCIN is generated by the Customs automated system and that its digit structure was not stated in the SCMTR provisions relevant to Customs Brokers. The challenge here thus pertains to the question being out of syllabus and not how the answer is demonstrably incorrect. 15. For question IDs 76, 72 and 74, the q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g precision of the question. They have however failed to demonstrate a patent error in the substantive legal proposition identified by the answer key. 20. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit, it has been asserted that every question and their corresponding answer were verified for its accuracy by the expert committee constituted for especially for the said purpose. It has consequently been asserted that since the legality and veracity of each question and answer was verified by the expert body, no ground to warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. 21. This Court has considered the case of the petitioners' in the best light and in the opinion of this Court, at the very highest, it is the case of the petitioners' that certain questions could have been framed with greater precision. The petitioners have however failed to demonstrate how the same is marred with glaring discrepancies. It is well settled that the key answer is to be presumed as correct unless, on the face of it, the same is demonstrated to be wrong. It is trite that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that ....