Page 277 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 923
CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS, 2013 :
— See under CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS, 2018 ..... 340
— Regulation 17 - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENSE .......... 580
— Regulation 18 - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENSE .......... 580
— Regulation 20 - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENCE .......... 689
CUSTOMS BROKERS LICENSING REGULATIONS, 2018 :
— Constitutional validity thereof - Vested right on attempts to pass
examination - Petitioner pleading that by reducing number of attempts in
said Regulations that an applicant could make to clear written as well as
oral examination compared to erstwhile Customs Brokers Licensing
Regulations, 2013, his vested right has been taken away and hence 2018
Regulations are unconstitutional - HELD : Undisputedly, aforesaid
Regulations have been framed by C.B.I. & C. in terms of powers
conferred upon it under Customs Act, 1962 - These Regulations are
prospective in nature and examinations held under them cannot be
treated as those undertaken under erstwhile 2013 Regulations - Merely
because attempt to clear written examination have been reduced to six
from seven and that of clearing interview from two to one under 2018
Regulations not meaning that earlier Regulations of 2013 had conferred
any vested right which could never be amended or changed - If plea of
petitioner is accepted then no Rule/Regulation could ever be
amended/modified - No law can be declared ultra vires simply because
certain clauses which existed earlier have been modified - In instant case
petitioner could not clear written examination under 2013 Regulations
even after 5 attempts - Having cleared written examination on his sixth
attempt under new Regulations and having failed in oral interview on his
first attempt thereunder, he cannot claim that he be given a second
chance to appear for interview in terms of superseded 2013 Regulations -
Judgments relied by petitioner are distinguishable on facts - Putting
curbs and reducing number of attempts to clear written as well as oral
examination under 2018 Regulations is not arbitrary or violative of
Article 14 of Constitution of India - Clauses 5 and 6 of Customs Brokers
Licensing Regulations, 2018 - Article 226 of Constitution of India —
Manish Rishishwar v. Union of India (Del.) ........................ 340
— Regulation 16(1) - See under CUSTOMS BROKER’S LICENSE ......... 594
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE DUTIES AND SERVICE TAX
DRAWBACK (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2006 :
— Rule 13 - See under DRAWBACK ......................... 254
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE DUTIES AND SERVICE TAX
DRAWBACK RULES, 1995 :
— Rule 12(1) - See under PENALTY ......................... 771
Customs House Agent not liable to penalty in absence of Mens rea in import
fraud - See under PENALTY ............................ 332
CUSTOMS NOTIFICATIONS :
— Notification No. 64/88-Cus. - See under CONFISCATION ............ 88
— See also under MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ................. 88
— Notification No. 158/95 - See under RE-IMPORTED GOODS .......... 405
— Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - See under MELTING SCRAP ......... 591
— See also under SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE ............... 60
— See also under WRIT ORDER ....................... 60
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  277