By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 06, 2015: THE Petitioner is before the Bombay High Court and claims that the action on the part of the Respondents in not issuing a Customs Broker Licence under the CBLR, 2013, though he has fulfilled all necessary conditions, are gross abuse of the powers conferred in them and, therefore, the Court should issue appropriate directions so that the petitioner can obtain the licence under these Regulations and function as a Custom House Agent/Broker.

The Petitioner inter alia submits that the partner of the firm, after referring to a notice of conduct of an examination for the grant of the Customs Broker Licence, applied in the requisite Form&appeared for the written examination followed by oral interview in the month of January and October, 2014; that the results of the oral examination were declared in November, 2014 and the partner was declared as having passed the examination;that a public notice to that effect was also issued. However, even after numerous visits to the offices of the Respondents for making inquiries as to why the Customs Broker Licence has not been issued (though the procedure is that it is issued within a period of two months from the date of clearance of the examination) and having failed in their attempts to obtain the same, the petitioner is before the High Court.

The Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Petitioner was initially interested in obtaining licence as a proprietor, but later on the status changed and that is why several inquiries and investigations have to be made; that the counsel was instructed to seek three months' time by the licencing authority to complete the formalities.

The High Court observed –

+ We are of the opinion that sufficient time has passed from the date the Petitioner's representative or partner has cleared the examination. He may have applied in the requisite form and initially as a Proprietor, but later on we do not find, even if the status is sought to be altered, that this much time and delay was justified.

+ The very purpose of inserting a requirement of passing a written as well as oral examination is defeated, if, within a reasonable time from the candidate being successful thereat, a licence is not issued to him or he is not informed the reasons for not issuing the same.

+ Eventually, these are matters of somebody's livelihood and we expect the authorities to be careful and sensitive. They may have to approach several statutory authorities and for making inquiries, verification and scrutiny, but they must demonstrate a sense of urgency, purpose and expedition.

+ If applicants like the Petitioner and those associated with it are kept waiting and do not know the outcome of their application even within a reasonable time, then, they are required to approach this Court. We find the request made by the Petitioner is justified.

+ We are of the opinion that the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India requires the authorities even in such matters to act fairly, reasonable and in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition has also indicated as to how the authorities issue licences and after the examinations to several applicants expeditiously.

+ We are, therefore, of the opinion that the time of three months as sought by the Respondents cannot be granted.

In fine, the High Court directed the respondent to complete the requisite steps and measures within a period of six weeks and communicate to the Petitioner their decision on the application seeking licence in terms of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2013.

The Writ Petition was disposed of.

(See 2015-TIOL-1543-HC-MUM-CUS)