{"id":132730,"date":"1996-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996"},"modified":"2017-05-21T08:29:54","modified_gmt":"2017-05-21T02:59:54","slug":"federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"Federation Of Customs House … vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Federation Of Customs House … vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCALE (5)368<\/div>\n
Author: S N.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh N.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFEDERATION OF CUSTOMS HOUSE AGENTSASSOCIATION & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH N.P. (J)\nAHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCALE  (5)368\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nN.P. SlNGH,J
\n     The  Federation   of  Customs   House   Agents   Agents
\nAssociation and\t others have  filed this  appeal against the
\njudgment of  the High  Court of\t Delhi, dismissing  the writ
\npetition filed\ton behalf of the appellants, questioning the
\nvalidity of  the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations,
\n1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Regulations) which
\nhave been  framed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs
\nunder Section  146 of  the Customs  Act,  1962\t(hereinafter
\nreferred to as the Customs Act).\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be mentioned  that the Customs Act repealed the
\nSea Customs  Act, 1878\tunder  which  Customs  House  Agents
\nLicensing Rules\t 1960 had  been framed (hereinafter referred
\nto as  the 1960\t Rules). Rule 2 (c) of the said rule defined
\n‘Customs House\tAgent’ to mean a person licensed under those
\nrules to  act as  agent for  the transaction of any business
\nrelating to  the entrance  or clearance of any vessel or the
\nimport or  export of  goods or baggage in any Customs House.
\nRule 6\tprescribed the\tconditions which had to be fulfilled
\nby the\tapplicant before  the grant  of licence\t to  act  as
\nCustoms House Agent, saying:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “6. Certain  conditions to  be
\n     fulfilled by  the applicant  before
\n     the grant of licence.- An applicant
\n     for a licence shall-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  furnish\tto  the\t Customs
\n     Collector satisfactory  evidence as
\n     to his  respectability,  reliabilty
\n     and financial status;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\t produce    satisfactory
\n     evidence to  the Customs  Collector
\n     that he  would be\tin a position to
\n     muster  sufficient\t  clientele  and
\n     business in  the event of his being
\n     granted the licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  furnish\t an   income-tax
\n     clearance certificate.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rule 9\tlaid down  the details and procedure for examination
\nof the\tapplicant with\ta view to ascertain his knowledge of
\ncustoms law  and procedure  and his fitness to render proper
\nservice, to  importers and exporters. Such examination could
\nbe oral\t or written or both. In view of Rule 10, the Customs
\nCollector was  empowered to  reject an\tapplication for\t the
\ngrant of  a licence  to act  as Customs\t House Agent, if the
\napplicant failed  to pass  the examination  prescribed under
\nthose rules  or if the applicant was not considered suitable
\ndue to\tany other  reason to  be stated\t in  writing.  After
\ncoming into  force of  the Customs  Act,  the  Custom  House
\nAgents Licensing  Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to
\nas the\t1965 Regulations)  were framed\tin exercise  of\t the
\npowers conferred  by sub-section  (2) of  Section 146 of the
\nsaid Act.  Rule 2(c)  defined ‘Custom House Agent’ to mean a
\nperson licenced\t under those regulations to act as agent for
\nthe transaction\t of any business relating to the entrance or
\nclearance of  any vessel or the import or export of goods or
\nbaggage in  any Custom\tHouse. Regulation 5 provided that an
\napplication for a licence to act as a Custom House Agent was
\nto be  made in\tthe form prescribed. Regulation 6 prescribed
\nthe conditions\tto be  fulfilled by the applicant before the
\ngrant of licence:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “6. Certain  conditions to  be
\n     fulfilled by  the applicant  before
\n     the grant of licence.- An applicant
\n     for a licence shall-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) furnish  to the  Collector
\n     of Customs\t satisfactory\tevidence
\n     as\t to   his   respectability   and
\n     financial status;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\t produce    satisfactory
\n     evidence  to   the\t  Collector   of
\n     Customs  that  he\twould  be  in  a
\n     position\tto   muster   sufficient
\n     clientle and  business in the event
\n     of his being granted the licence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  furnish\t an  income  tax
\n     clearance certificate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Regulation 9 contained the provision and procedure regarding
\nexamination of\tthe applicant  with a  view to ascertain his
\nknowledge of  custom law  and procedure\t and his  fitness to
\nrender service\tto importers and exporters. This examination
\ncould be  oral or  written or  both to\tbe conducted  by the
\nCollector of  Customs or  by  a\t committee  of\tofficers  of
\ncustoms to  be\tappointed  by  him  for\t that  purpose.\t The
\nregulations  which   were  framed   in\texercise  of  powers
\nconferred by  sub-section (2)  of Section 146 of the Customs
\nAct in\tthe year 1984 referred to above repealed the Customs
\nHouse Agents  Licensing Regulations  1965.  Several  changes
\nwere introduced\t in the\t 1984 regulations.  Regulation\t2(c)
\ndefines ‘Customs  House Agent’\tto mean\t a  person  licensed
\nunder the regulations to act as agent for the transaction of
\nany  business\trelating  to   the  entry  or  departure  of
\nconveyance or  the import  or export of goods at any customs
\nstation. In  view of  regulation 4, the Collector may invite
\napplications for  the grant  of a  licence to act as Customs
\nHouse Agent  in the  month of January every year in the form
\nprescribed. Regulations 6 and 8 which are the subject matter
\nof controversy in the present appeal provided the conditions
\nwhich have  to be  fulfilled by\t the applicant\tand conceive
\ngrant of temporary licences as well:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “6. Conditions to be fulfilled
\n     by the applicant,- The applicant or
\n     the person referred to in Cl.(b) of
\n     sub-regulations  (2)   and\t (3)  of
\n     Regulation 5  as the  case may  be,
\n     shall prove  to the satisfaction of
\n     the Collector that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) he  has the  experience of
\n     work relating to clearance of goods
\n     through the customs for a period of
\n     not less than one year; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\t the\tapplicant    has
\n     financial viability  supported by a
\n     certificate issued\t by a  Scheduled
\n     Bank or such other proof acceptable
\n     to\t  the\t Collector    evidencing
\n     possession of  assets of  the value
\n     of not  less than\tRs.1 lakh in the
\n     case of applicants for the grant of
\n     licence in\t respect of  any one  of
\n     the  Customs  Stations  at\t Bombay,
\n     Calcutta, Madras,\tCochin,\t Kandla,
\n     Goa,   Mangalore,\t  Tuticorin   or
\n     Visakhapatnam  and\t not  less  than
\n     Rs.50,000 in  the case  of the each
\n     of\t the   other  Customs  Stations,
\n     situated at places other than those
\n     specified above:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that in cases where a
\n     Collector’s jurisdiction extends to
\n     more than\tone Customs  Station the
\n     Collector may issue one licence for
\n     all the  Stations or  more than one
\n     such\t station to be specified
\n     in the  licence, waiving  the  need
\n     for  separate   compliance\t of  the
\n     provisions\t of  Cls.  (a)\tand  (b)
\n     above for\tsuch additional\t Customs
\n     Stations. The  Collector  may  also
\n     waive   the   need\t  for\tseparate
\n     compliance of  the\t requirement  of
\n     Regulation 11 in such cases:
\n\t  Provided   further   that   in
\n     places where there is more than one
\n     Collector\texercising  jurisdiction
\n     over different Customs Stations and
\n     Custom House Agents, licenced under
\n     the Custom\t House Agents  Licensing
\n     Regulations,   1965    have    been
\n     operating\tin   the  said\t Customs
\n     Stations  on   the\t basis\t of  one
\n     licence, it  shall be  open to such
\n     agents  to\t  obtain   a   temporary
\n     licence under Regulation 8 from the
\n     Collector other  than the\tone  who
\n     has  issued   them\t  the\texisting
\n     licence, without  being required to
\n     comply  with  the\trequirements  of
\n     Regulation 6 in regard to financial
\n     viability or the requirements as to
\n     fresh   deposit\tin   terms    of
\n     Regulation 11.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “8.\tGrant\t of    temporary
\n     licence.-\t Any   applicant   whose
\n     application is  received within the
\n     last date specified in Regulation 4
\n     and who  satisfies the requirements
\n     of Regulations  5 and  6, shall  be
\n     permitted\tto   operate  as  Custom
\n     House Agent  at the  Custom Station
\n     for which\tthe application\t is made
\n     initially for  the\t period\t of  one
\n     year  against   temporary\t licence
\n     granted by\t the Collector\tin  this
\n     regard in Form B.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that when evidence is
\n     produced to  the Collector that the
\n     applicant has  already  availed  of
\n     two chances  for qualifying  in the
\n     written   or    oral    examination
\n     prescribed in  these regulation and
\n     would like\t to avail  of the  third
\n     chance  as\t  soon\t as   the   next
\n     examination is  held  in  terms  of
\n     Regulation 9 and that the applicant
\n     has been  able to\taccount for  the
\n     minimum volume  of work  prescribed
\n     for such  agents in  the course  of
\n     one year’s\t working, the  Collector
\n     may extend\t the aforesaid period of
\n     one year  for which  the  temporary
\n     licence has been granted by another
\n     six months\t or such  further period
\n     not exceeding  one year  to  enable
\n     the applicant to avail of the third
\n     chance  for   qualifying\tin   the
\n     examination in  terms of Regulation\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9. While  granting such  extension,
\n     the  Collector   of  Customs  shall
\n     satisfy\thimself\t    that     the
\n     requirements     of     Regulations
\n     10(1)(a)  and   10(1)(b)  had  been
\n     fully met by the applicant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On a  plain readings  in view of regulation 6, the applicant
\nhas to\tprove to  the satisfaction  of the Collector that he
\nhas an\texperience of  work relating  to clearance  of goods
\nthrough the  customs for a period of not less than one year.
\nIncidentally,  it  may\tbe  mentioned  that  clause  (a)  of
\nRegulation  6\thas   been   substituted   by\tNotification
\nNo.74\/9l(N.T.)-Cus., dated  15.11.1991 and  now it  read  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “6. Conditions to be fulfilled
\n     by the applicant.- The applicant or
\n     the person\t referred to  in  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) of  sub-regulations (2) and (3)
\n     of Regulation 5 as the case may be,
\n     shall prove  to the satisfaction of
\n     the Collector that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  is   an\temployee   of  a
\n     licensee and  that he  possesses  a
\n     permanent pass in Form G prescribed
\n     under regulation  20  and\thas  the
\n     experience\t of   work  relating  to
\n     clearance\tof   goods  through  the
\n     customs, for  a period  of not Less
\n     than one  year, in\t the capacity of
\n     such a pass-holder; and……….”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This was not required under 1960 rules and 1965 regulations.
\nRegulation 8  provides that  an applicant shall be permitted
\nto operates as Custom House Agent at the Customs Station for
\nwhich the  application is  made initially  for the period of
\none year  against temporary licence granted by the Collector
\nin Form B. In view of proviso to the said regulation 8, such
\napplicant is entitled to avail of two chances for qualifying
\nin the\twritten or  oral  examination  prescribed  in  those
\nregulations. However,  he may  avail of\t the third chance in
\nthe next  examination to be held in terms of regulation 9 on
\nthe conditions\tprescribed in  proviso to  regulation 8. The
\nCollector has  empowered to  extend the\t aforesaid period sf
\none year  for which  the temporary licence  had been granted
\nby another  six months\tor such further period not exceeding
\none year  to enable  the applicant  to avail  of  the  third
\nchance for qualifying in the examination. Regulation 9 gives
\nthe details  of such  examination which\t is to\tbe conducted
\ntwice every  year. A  licensee may,  having  regard  to\t the
\nvolume of  business transacted\tby him in view of regulation
\n20 `employ  one or more persons to assist him in his work as
\nCustom House  Agent’. Such  appointment of  a person  by the
\nlicensee is  to be mode only after obtaining the approval of
\nthe  Assistant\t Collector  of\t Customs.  Regulation  20(3)
\nprescribes the\tcondition subject  to which such persons can
\nbe appointed  by the  licensee to  assist him in his work as
\nCustom House  Agent. Regulation\t 20(3) requires\t such person
\nwho  has   been\t employed   by\tthe  licensee  to  pass\t the
\nexamination conducted  by the Assistant Collector of Customs
\nwithin six  months from\t the  date  of\this  appointment  to
\nascertain  the\tadequacy  of  his  knowledge  regarding\t the
\nprovisions of  the  statutes  subject  to  which  goods\t and
\nbaggage are cleared through the Customs.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  challenged the validity of regulation 8
\naforesaid saying  that it  has introduced  an arbitrary\t and
\nirrational provision  regarding grant  of temporary  licence
\nbefore an applicant qualifies at the examination to be held.
\nAccording to  them, 1960 rules and 1965 regulations required
\nthe applicant  first to\t appear at  the examination and only
\nafter such  applicant was  selected, a\tlicence\t was  to  be
\ngranted to  him to act as Custom House Agent, but regulation
\n8 of  1984 regulations enables the applicant, who has not at
\nall appeared  at any  such examination\tto act\tas a  Custom
\nHouse Agent  on basis of temporary licence granted to him by
\nthe Collector. On basis of such temporary licence he can act
\nas Custom  House Agent\tfor a period of one year as a matter
\nof course  and upto the period of two years on the condition
\nprescribed by  proviso to  regulation  8  which\t is  per  se
\narbitrary, inasmuch  as a person is allowed to act as Custom
\nHouse Agent  on\t basis\tof  temporary  licence\twithout\t his
\nsuitability and qualifications being tested which was a must
\nunder the  earlier rules and regulations. It was pointed out
\nthat the  holders of  such temporary  licences\twithout\t the
\nevaluation of their merit can transact any business relating
\nto entry  or departure of the conveyance or import or export
\nof goods  at the  Customs   Station, at,  par  with  regular
\nlicensees  who\thave  got  the\tlicence\t after\tpassing\t the
\nexaminations  conducted\t  for  their   selection.  In\tthis
\nconnection reference  was made\tto the\tReport of  the Study
\nTeam on\t the Customs Department, submitted in the year 1967.
\nIn the\tsaid report in respect of the clearing agency system
\nit was\tsuggested that\tthe clearing  agency rules should be
\ntightened to  provide effective\t control over  the  clearing
\nagents. For that object strict tests for grant of licence or
\napproval to conduct Custom House business should be held. It
\nalso recommended that clearing agents associations should be
\nencouraged to arrange their affairs like a disciplined guild
\nwith a code of conduct, fair scales of charges, arrangements
\nfor training their staff and regulations regarding employing
\nunqualified or\tundesirable persons. It was also pointed out
\nthat the  aforesaid recommendation, that the clearing agency
\nrules should  be tightened to provide effective control over
\nthe agents  had been  accepted by  the Government. Reference
\nwas also made to the Report of the committee for Subordinate
\nLegislation,  submitted\t in  the  year\t1983  in  which\t the
\nprocedure for  inviting applications for grant of licence to
\nact as\tCustoms House  Agent, conduct  of a  written or oral
\nexamination to\tsatisfy regarding  the\tsuitability  of\t the
\napplicant was  recommended apart  from\tother  requirements.
\nHowever, it  may be  pointed out  that\tthe  said  committee
\nitself had felt:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “….the  present  restriction
\n     on\t the  number  of  Customs  House
\n     Agents should be done away with and
\n     that the  licences should be thrown
\n     open      to      all\teligible
\n     candidates….. “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The committee also recommended:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The licence\tshould be issued
\n     initially for  a period  of 2 years
\n     and performance  of  the  applicant
\n     watched.\t The\tlicence\t   will,
\n     therefore, be  a temporary\t one and
\n     its  conversion  into  a  permanent
\n     licence will  be conditional on the
\n     applicants’  showing   satisfactory
\n     turn over\tand a  minimum level  of
\n     efficiency.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We are\tnot able  to appreciate\t as to how the Report of the
\nCommittee for  Subordinate Legislation\thelps the appellants
\nwhen the  said committee  itself recommended  that temporary
\nlicence should ba issued initially for a period of two years
\nand  performance   of  the  applicant  be  watched  and\t the
\nconversion of the temporary licence into a permanent licence
\nshould\t be   conditional   on\t the   applicants’   showing
\nsatisfactory turn  over and  a minimum\tlevel of efficiency.
\nRegulation 8  of 1984  regulations,  appears  to  have\tbeen
\nframed\ton   the  basis\t  of  the  aforesaid  recommendation
\nregarding grant\t of temporary  licence for  a period  of one
\nyear which period can be extended upto 2 years on conditions
\nprescribed in  proviso to  regulation 8. If regulation 8 has
\nbeen framed  on the  pattern suggested\tby the Committee for
\nSubordinate Legislation,  we are  unable to appreciate as to
\nhow regulation\t8 can  be held\tto be  invalid, arbitrary or
\nultra vires.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  counsel, who\tappeared for the appellants,
\ncould not  point out  that a  regulation in  the  nature  of
\nregulation 8  could not\t have been framed in exercise of the
\npower conferred\t by sub-section\t (2) of\t Section 146  of the
\nCustoms Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 146 prescribes a bar
\nthat no\t person shall carry on business as an agent relating
\nto the\tentry or  departure of a conveyance or the import or
\nexport of  goods at  any customs  station unless such person
\nholds a\t licence granted  in this  behalf in accordance with
\nthe regulations.  None of  the clauses of sub-section (2) of
\nSection 146  prescribe any restriction on grant of temporary
\nlicence. The Committee for Subordinate Legislation aforesaid
\nhad  also   recommended\t under\t the  heading\t`eligibility
\nconditions’ that  the applicant\t must be  atleast a graduate
\nand the\t desirable qualification  should be  atleast 3 years
\nexperience which  could be  reduced to 6 months in deserving
\ncases. Then it recommended that such applicant should pass a
\nwritten examination  which shall  be held  annually. It also
\nrecommended  that   temporary  licence\t should\t be   issued
\ninitially for  a period\t of two years and the performance of
\nthe applicant  be watched.  The Committee  did not  say that
\nsuch temporary\tlicence should\tbe  issued  only  after\t the
\napplicant had passed the written examination, rather it laid
\nemphasis that  a temporary  licence should be converted into
\na permanent  ‘on the  applicants showing  satisfactory\tturn
\nover and a minimum level of efficiency’. In this background,
\nit is  difficult to hold that when regulation 8 provides for
\ngrant of  temporary licence  for a period of one year before
\nthe  applicant\t has  qualified\t  in  the  written  or\toral
\nexamination so\tprescribed,  it\t is  invalid,  arbitrary  or
\nunconstitutional in  any manner.  Regulation  8\t has  proper
\ncheck and  balance in  which the experience of work relating
\nto clearance  of goods\tthrough the  customs as\t well as the
\nperformance at\tthe qualifying\twritten or  oral examination
\nboth have  been taken  note  of.  The  amendment  which\t was
\nintroduced in  clause (a)  of regulation  6 by the aforesaid
\nnotification dated  15.11.1991 links  the experience of such
\napplicant acquired  in accordance with the regulation 20. It
\ncannot be said that by postponing the qualifying examination
\nfor a period of one year and on fulfilling the conditions of
\nthe proviso  to regulation  8 upto  2 years  in\t respect  of
\ntemporary  licensee,   any  irrational\tprocedure  has\tbeen
\nprescribed or  adopted. From reading regulations 6, 8 and 20
\nit is  apparent that  1984 regulations have given due weight
\nto the experience as well as to the merit.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  pointed out  that in many countries like United
\nStates and  Australia, written\texamination for such Customs
\nHouse Agents  is a  must and that test should be held at the
\nthreshold. Even\t under regulation  8 a qualifying written or
\noral test  is a\t must for a temporary licensee. Regulation 8
\nrequires the  applicant who has been permitted to operate as
\nCustom House  Agent  to\t qualify  at  the  written  or\toral
\nexamination prescribed\twithin the  period of  one year\t and
\nunder certain specified conditions within a further extended
\nperiod of one year.\n<\/p>\n
     On behalf\tof the\tappellant, reference was made to the
\njudgment  of   this  Court   in\t the  case  of\tChandhrakant
\nKrishnarao Pradhan  vs. The  Collector of  Customs,  Bombay,
\n(1962) 3  SOR 108 and it was pointed out that rule 9 of 1960
\nrules which provided for examination written or oral or both
\nwas upheld  by this  Court. Admittedly, in that case neither
\nthere was  any controversy nor could have been in respect of
\ngrant of  temporary licence  for a  limited  period  before;
\nqualifying at  the written or oral examination, as there was
\nno such\t provision in  those rules.  That judgment  is of no
\nhelp to\t the appellants.  Attention was\t also drawn  to\t the
\njudgment of  this Court\t in the case of D.V.Bakshi vs. Union
\nof India,  (1993) 3  SCC 663  where in\ta different  contest
\nregulations 8 and 9 of 1984 regulations had been challenged.
\nA grievance  had been  made that  100 marks for written test
\nand 50 marks for oral test was arbitrary and irrational. The
\ncontroversy with  which we are concerned was not involved in
\nthat case. However, incidentally it may be mentioned that in
\nrespect of  grant of  temporary licence\t for a period of one
\nyear under regulation 8, it was said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The importance  of  the  oral
\n     interview lies in the fact that the
\n     examiners have  an\t opportunity  to
\n     assess   his   performance\t  as   a
\n     temporary licence\tholder and  also
\n     seek his clarification in regard to
\n     certain matters  which  might  have
\n     come to  their knowledge during the
\n     period he\tworked\tas  a  temporary
\n     licence  holder.\tThe  Regulations
\n     have,  therefore,\t taken\tcare  to
\n     ensure that he has experience of at
\n     least one\tyear as an apprentice to
\n     an agent  before he applies for the
\n     grant  of\t licence.  In  order  to
\n     assess  his  work\the  is\tgiven  a
\n     temporary\t licence    before    he
\n     qualifies\t  by\t clearing    the
\n     prescribed\t    examination.     The
\n     authorities have the opportunity of
\n     assessing his  knowledge  regarding
\n     the laws  and procedure through the
\n     written  examination.  It\tmust  be
\n     remembered that the customs station
\n     is a  place of  work. Observance of
\n     regulations is absolutely essential
\n     as movement  of very valuable goods
\n     takes place  and only  sufficiently
\n     experienced hands\tcan be permitted
\n     to act  as agents.\t He must satisfy
\n     the   authorities\t that\the   has
\n     adequate  knowledge  regarding  the
\n     laws and  the  procedure  connected
\n     with the  clearance  of  goods  and
\n     that he  actually is  in a position
\n     to handle\tthe work from the moment
\n     he is  licensed. The  assessment of
\n     his work during the period he holds
\n     the licence is, therefore, of great
\n     relevance and  that can  be done at
\n     the oral  test only. The assessment
\n     has to  be made on the basis of his
\n     performance    as\t  a    temporary
\n     licenceholder and\this capacity  to
\n     handle goods  as an  agent\t at  the
\n     customs station.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It can be said that in the aforesaid judgment this Court has
\nimpressed the  utility of  the temporary licence for purpose
\nof the\tassessment of  the work\t of such  temporary  licence
\nholder.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Federation Of Customs House … vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCALE (5)368 Author: S N.P. Bench: Singh N.P. (J) PETITIONER: FEDERATION OF CUSTOMS HOUSE AGENTSASSOCIATION & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/07\/1996 BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFederation Of Customs House ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Federation Of Customs House ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-21T02:59:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Federation Of Customs House … vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T02:59:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3472,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996\",\"name\":\"Federation Of Customs House ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T02:59:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Federation Of Customs House … vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Federation Of Customs House ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Federation Of Customs House ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-21T02:59:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Federation Of Customs House … vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T02:59:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996"},"wordCount":3472,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996","name":"Federation Of Customs House ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T02:59:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/federation-of-customs-house-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Federation Of Customs House … vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132730","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132730"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132730\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}