Customs House Agent liability requires proof of knowing participation or licence transfer, not mere association with exporter fraud.

A Customs House Agent cannot be penalised for an exporter's overvaluation fraud unless there is material proving knowing participation, unauthorised transfer of the licence, or breach of supervisory duties under the licensing regulations. The record showed the person said to have received the licence was an intimated employee with a Customs pass, and the evidence did not conclusively establish licence transfer. As the exporter's fraud was detected only after examination and out of charge, and no cogent finding showed abetment or improper gain, the cancellation of the licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the Customs House Agent licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were justified on the of transfer of licence to an employee, failure to supervise the employee, and alleged involvement in the exporter's overvaluation fraud.

Analysis: The record showed that the person alleged to have received the licence was in fact an employee duly intimated to Customs and issued a pass, and the evidence did not conclusively establish transfer of the licence. The allegations of lack of supervision and breach of the relevant regulations were not supported by cogent findings, while the exporter's fraudulent overvaluation was detected only after Customs had examined the goods and granted out of charge. The CHA's role was limited to normal agency functions, and there was no material to show knowing participation, abetment, or gain beyond ordinary remuneration.

Conclusion: The charges against the CHA were not made out, and the order cancelling the licence and forfeiting the security deposit was not sustainable. The decision was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs House Agent cannot be penalised for an exporter's fraud in the absence of material proving knowing participation, transfer of licence, or breach of supervisory obligations under the licensing regulations.

---