FEDERATION OF CUSTOMS HOUSE AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 15-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
FEDERATION OF CUSTOMS HOUSE AGENTS 
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 15, 1999 
[N.P. SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984-Regns. 2(C), 4, 
5, 6, 8, 9 and 20---Customs House Agent-Validity of Regulation &-Grant of 
C temporary licence, without passing the examination specified by regula-
tion~Regulations framed on the suggestion made by the Committee on Sub-
ordinate-Legislation-Held, neither arbitrary nor violative of Sec. 146 of the 
Custom Act-<:ustoms Act, 1962 S. 146-<:onstiHltion of India, Art, 14. 
Under the Customs House Agents Licensing regulations, 1960 and 
D 1965 applicant had to appear in the examinations conducted for the 
selection of Custom House Agent and only selected candidate could get the 
licence for the Custom House Agent, But 1984 Regulation enable the to act 
as Custom House Agent, without passing such examination, on the basis 
of temporary licence granted to him by the Collector. On this licence he 
E can act as Custom House Agent for a period of one year as a matter of 
course and up to two years on the conditions prescribed by proviso to 
regulation 8 of 1984 Regulation. 
The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the validity of 1984 
Regulation, as it was arbitrary, inasmuch as a person allo,ved to act as 
F Custom House >\.gent on the basis of temporary licence without his 
suitability and qualifications being tested, which was a must under the 
earlier regulations and permitted to act at par with regular licensees who 
have got the licence after passing the examination conducted for their 
selection, High Court found no merit and dismissed the petition. Hence, 
G this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing 
Regulations, 1984 have been framed on the basis of recommendation made 
H by the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, for grant of temporary 
548 
FEDERATION OF CUSTOMS HOUSE AGENTS ASSN. v. STATE 
549 
licence as such it couldn't be held to be arbitrary or ultra vires. [556-C-D] A 
2.1. Regulation 8 has been framed in exercises of the power conferred 
by Sub. Sec. (2) of Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962. Sub-section (1) 
of Section 146, prescribes a bar that no person shall carry on business as 
an agent relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance of the import 
or export of goods ai any Customs Stations unless such person holds a 
licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the Regulations. None of 
the clauses of sub-section (2) of Section 146 of the Act prescribed any 
restriction on grant of temporary licence. [556-E-F) 
2.2. T)ie Committee on Subordinate-Legislation bad recommended 
that temporary licence should be issued initially for a period of two years 
and the performance of the applicant be watched. TI1e Committee did not 
say that such temporary licence should be issued only after the applicant 
B 
c 
had passed the written examination; rather it laid emphasis that a tem-
porary licence should be converted into permanent 'on the applicant's 
showing satisfactory turn over and a minimum level of efficiency'. Regula-
D 
ti on 8l1as proper check and balance in which the experience of work relating 
to clearance of goods through the Customs as well as the performance at the 
qualifying written or oral examination, both have been taken note of. It 
cannot, therefore, be said that the postponing the qualifying examination 
for a period of one year .and on fulfilling the conditions of the proviso to 
regulation 8 up to 2 years in respect of temporary licensee, any irrational 
procedure has been prescribed or adopted and that Regulation 8 is invalid, 
arhi.trary or unconstitutional in any manner. [556-G-H; 557-B-C] 
Chandhrakant Krislmarao Pradhan v. The Collector of Customs, Bom-
bay, (1962) 3 SCR 108 and D. V. Bakshi v. Union of India, I1993) 3 SCC 
663, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 
1985 Etc. Etc. 
E 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.2.85 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W. No. 1186 of 1984. 
M. Chandrasekharan, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, S.B. 
Sanyal, Dr. Suman! Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, S.P. Pandey, 
Ms. Rekha Pandey, S.N. Bhattacharya, R.D. Upadhyay, G.G. Upadhyay, H 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A N.K. Bajpai, V.K. Verma, D.S. Mehra and C.V. Subba Rao for the appear-
ing parties. 
The following Order of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.