Impugned Communication restricting F-Card Holder’s Practice has been Issued without Authority under Law: Madras HC Sets Aside Customs Restriction [Read Order]
The HC set aside para 6 of impugned communication finding that such a limitation had been imposed without any authority of law
The Madras High Court has set aside a restriction preventing an F-card holder from representing a company for obtaining a customs broker licence outside the jurisdiction where the F-card examination was cleared. The High Court held that such a limitation has no authority under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
The ruling came in a writ petition filed by M/s Winwin Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner challenged a communication dated 17.10.2025 issued through the Customs Broker License Management System, wherein the Customs authorities returned an application for grant of a customs broker licence citing six deficiencies.
The petitioner agreed to comply with the deficiencies mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 5, but questioned the basis of paragraph 6. The paragraph stated that since the authorised signatory had qualified the F-card examination in the Coimbatore jurisdiction, he was not eligible to apply for a licence in Chennai under Regulation 4(2) of the CBLR, 2018.
It was contended before the Court that an F-card holder is entitled to represent the interests of the petitioner company before any Customs station in India, subject to compliance with the CBLR, 2018. Restricting such representation to a particular jurisdiction was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner further submitted that the impugned restriction violated the principles of natural justice and the fundamental right to carry on business.
The Customs Department argued that the impugned communication intended to point out the deficiencies in petitioner’s application, and is not a final order. Therefore, the writ petition was premature.
Justice Abdul Quddhose, in his order, observed that paragraph 6 of the impugned communication restricted the F-card holder from representing the petitioner company before the Chennai Customs authorities, despite there being no such restriction in place. The Court held that such a limitation had been imposed without any authority of law.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside paragraph 6 of the impugned communication dated October 17, 2025. The petitioner had given an undertaking to comply with the deficiencies mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 5, and the Court recorded the same.
As a result, the writ petition was disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
