Proved misconduct by customs house agent justified licence action and forfeiture of security deposit under CHALR, 1984.

Admissions by the customs house agent and the unauthorised person established that bills of entry were handled by an unlicensed person under a profit-sharing arrangement, and the later explanation that papers were only left temporarily was rejected as an afterthought. The inquiry report supported the charge, and the show cause notice validly covered revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit. On proved misconduct, Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 1984 authorised forfeiture of part of the security deposit, so the penalty was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs house agent had committed proved misconduct by allowing an unauthorised person to handle bills of entry and whether, under Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 1984, the Commissioner could validly direct forfeiture of part of the security deposit.

Analysis: The record contained admissions by the customs house agent and by the unauthorised person that there was a profit-sharing arrangement and that the latter was handling the business without authorisation. The later explanation that a licensed clerk had merely left the papers temporarily with the unauthorised person was treated as an afterthought. The inquiry report supported the charge. The show cause notice specifically called upon the appellant to meet the proposal for revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit, and Regulation 21 empowered such action on proved misconduct.

Conclusion: The misconduct was proved and the forfeiture of security deposit under Regulation 21 was valid. The appeal failed.

---