Custom House Agent licence revocation cannot rest on conjecture; unauthorised handling must be proved by direct evidence.

Revocation of a Custom House Agent licence for alleged breach of the licensing regulations cannot be sustained on assumptions alone; unauthorised handling of customs clearance work must be proved by direct, categorical evidence. Here, the revocation rested on inference that someone other than authorised staff must have handled the baggage, but no statement was recorded from the alleged assistant and there was no admission from the canvassing agent or clerk. As the disciplinary finding depended on conjecture rather than clinching evidence, the licence revocation was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether revocation of the Custom House Agent licence under Regulation 22(c) of the Custom House Agent's Licensing Regulations, 2004, for alleged breach of Regulation 13(a), could be sustained in the absence of direct or categorical evidence that an unauthorised person handled the customs clearance work.

Analysis: The revocation order rested on an inference that someone other than the authorised staff must have been present in the examination hall and handled the baggage. No statement was recorded from the person alleged to have assisted, nor was there any admission from the canvassing agent or the clerk that an unauthorised person had handled the package. The finding was thus founded on assumptions and presumptions rather than on categorical and clinching evidence. In disciplinary action affecting a licence, a charge of unauthorised handling must be proved by evidence and cannot be upheld on mere conjecture.

Conclusion: The revocation of the licence was not sustainable and was set aside; the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---