Customs licence revocation cannot rest on a partnership dissolution dispute absent proven misconduct in licensed customs work.

Customs authorities had no jurisdiction to decide a partnership dissolution dispute, because that was a civil matter arising from the partnership deed and had to be pursued under the partnership arrangement or before the Civil Court. Revocation of a customs house agent licence and forfeiture of security were also unjustified, since the inquiry did not establish prejudicial conduct or misconduct in the conduct of customs house work. A civil dispute over dissolution could not, by itself, support licence revocation unless legally sustainable misconduct in licensed customs business was proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs authorities could adjudicate upon the validity of the dissolution dispute between partners of the erstwhile firm. (ii) Whether revocation of the customs house agent licence and forfeiture of security were justified on the ground of alleged misinformation and misconduct.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs authorities could adjudicate upon the validity of the dissolution dispute between partners of the erstwhile firm.

Analysis: The dispute concerning dissolution of the partnership was a civil dispute arising out of the partnership deed. Such issues were not within the competence of the Customs authorities, whose role was confined to matters arising under the licensing regulations. The aggrieved partners had remedies under the partnership arrangement or before the Civil Court.

Conclusion: The Customs authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the partnership dissolution dispute.

Issue (ii): Whether revocation of the customs house agent licence and forfeiture of security were justified on the ground of alleged misinformation and misconduct.

Analysis: The licence had been issued after the applicant fulfilled the requisite regulatory conditions. The inquiry report did not find any prejudicial conduct or misconduct in the conduct of customs house work, and the alleged dispute about dissolution could not by itself establish misconduct warranting revocation. Revocation could follow only from a legally sustainable finding of misconduct in relation to the customs house business.

Conclusion: Revocation of the licence and forfeiture of security were not justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revocation order was unsustainable in law, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs licensing authority cannot determine the validity of a partnership dissolution dispute, and a licence cannot be revoked merely because such a civil dispute exists unless misconduct in the conduct of licensed customs work is legally established.

---