Page 120 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

342 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

4. The submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is
that under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, the applicants who
were successful in the written examination, were entitled to be called for oral
examination within two years from the date of declaration of the result of the
related written examination. Therefore, the applicants who were successful in
written examination had two chances of clearing the overall examination by at-
tempting two oral examinations. Even if the applicant failed in the first oral ex-
amination and, consequently was declared failed, he could be called for another
oral examination and, if, the applicant succeeded, he would be declared success-
ful in the examination. In this regard, our attention is drawn to Regulation 6 of
the regulations framed in the year 2013, taken note of hereinabove. The relevant
extract thereof reads as follows :
“6. Examination of the applicant. -
(1) An applicant, who satisfies the requirements of regulation 5,
shall be required to appear for a written as well as oral exami-
nation conducted by the DGICCE :
Provided that an applicant who has already passed the exam-
ination referred to in regulation 9 of the Custom House
Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 and regulation 8 of the
Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 shall not
be required to appear for any further examination.
(2) The written examination shall be conducted on specified dates
in month of January of each year for which intimation shall be
sent individually to applicants in advance before the date of
examination and the result of the said examination shall be
declared by end of May each year.
(3) The applicant who is declared successful in the written exami-
nation shall be called for an oral examination on specified
dates in month of June of each year, the result of which shall
be declared in the month of July of each year.
(4) The applicant shall be required to clear written examination as
well as oral examination.
(5) An applicant who fails to clear the oral examination within
two years from date of declaration of result of the related writ-
ten examination shall be treated as having failed in the exami-
nation.”
5. Though, it is not stated so in the writ petition, our attention has been
drawn to the representation made by the petitioner on 11-6-2019, which discloses
that the petitioner had made five attempts at taking the examinations under the
erstwhile 2013 regulations and he appeared for the 6th time after the framing of
2018 regulations on 15-3-2019.
6. Further, the grievance of the petitioner is that under the 2013 regula-
tions, the petitioner was entitled to seven attempts, whereas, under the 2018 reg-
ulations, he is entitled to only six attempts to clear the examination. The chal-
lenge to the 2018 regulations is premised on the foundation that the petitioner
had a vested right to seven attempts, since the petitioner had appeared on five
occasions under the 2013 regulations and that the vested right could not be taken
away while framing the 2018 regulations. Similarly, the petitioner is entitled to
two attempts at interview, under the 2013 regulations, which has been curtailed
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  120