Licence record violations justified forfeiture, but an ineffective suspension order could not remain recorded as operative punishment.

A licensed Customs House Agent's failure to maintain prescribed statutory registers was proved, and that lapse justified forfeiture of the security deposit under the licensing regulations. The allegation of aiding and abetting illegal imports was not established, but the record-keeping breach alone sustained the penalty. Separately, the suspension order was issued but was not found to have taken effect in practice, as a fresh security deposit was made the next day in compliance with the order. Since no operative suspension period existed, the entry of suspension in the licence record was directed to be expunged.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-maintenance of the prescribed registers by the licensed Customs House Agent was established and justified forfeiture of the security deposit; (ii) whether the suspension order had in fact taken effect and whether the entry of suspension in the licence record was liable to be expunged.

Issue (i): whether non-maintenance of the prescribed registers by the licensed Customs House Agent was established and justified forfeiture of the security deposit.

Analysis: The prescribed registers required under Regulation 14(a) were not maintained, and that charge stood proved. The allegation of aiding and abetting illegal import was not established, but the proved lapse in maintaining statutory records warranted punishment. The forfeiture ordered under the licensing regulations was therefore sustainable.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of the security deposit was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the suspension order had in fact taken effect and whether the entry of suspension in the licence record was liable to be expunged.

Analysis: The suspension order was issued on 23rd and a fresh security deposit was made on 24th in compliance with the order. In these circumstances, the suspension was not found to have been effected in fact, and no operative period of suspension existed. As the suspension did not take effect, its recording in the licence particulars was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The suspension entry in the licence was directed to be expunged.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of removing the suspension entry, while the forfeiture of the security deposit remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A proved failure to maintain prescribed licence records can justify forfeiture under the licensing regulations, but a suspension that has not in fact taken effect cannot be reflected as an operative punishment in the licence record.

---