Licence suspension for employee misconduct and stale contraventions fails where conduct is outside agency business and delayed action undermines urgency.

Suspension of a customs house agent's licence under Regulation 21(2) is not justified merely because an employee allegedly committed an assault; responsibility under Regulation 20(7) extends only to acts or omissions connected with employment and the conduct of business as agent. Where the incident was outside the employee's duties and not shown to be directed or furthering the agent's business, that ground fails. Alleged past contraventions also do not support suspension when the department knew of the matters long before but took no immediate action, indicating they were not treated as requiring urgent suspension.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension of the customs house agent's licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was justified on the basis of an alleged assault by an employee, and whether it was justified on the basis of alleged past contraventions under Regulation 23.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged assault by the customs clerk furnished a valid ground for suspension of the licence.

Analysis: Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 makes the agent responsible for the acts or omissions of its employees only in relation to their employment and the conduct of business as agent. The alleged assault was not shown to have been committed in the course of the employee's duties, at the direction of the appellant, or in furtherance of the appellant's business. On the contrary, the record showed that the employee's services were terminated and the department was informed promptly after the incident.

Conclusion: The alleged assault did not constitute sufficient ground for suspension of the licence and this reason failed against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged past contraventions under Regulation 23 justified suspension of the licence under Regulation 21(2).

Analysis: The alleged acts dated back to 1999, the departmental enquiry material had been completed by March 2000, and the department had apparent knowledge of the matters by April or May 2000. Yet no suspension was ordered for about two years and the appellant continued to function as agent. That delay indicated that the department itself had not treated the allegations as requiring immediate suspension under Regulation 21(2).

Conclusion: The alleged past contraventions did not justify suspension of the licence and this ground also failed against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The order suspending the licence could not be sustained and was set aside, with the appeal succeeding.

---