Customs house agent licence revocation fails where Section 108 statements were untested and no knowing misuse was proved.

A CHA licence cancellation was found unsustainable where the charge rested mainly on Section 108 statements and the makers were not offered for cross-examination. Under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, such statements could not be treated as reliable evidence when cross-examination was mandatory. The record also lacked concrete proof that the proprietor had instructed, consented to, or knowingly benefited from the alleged misuse, and the prolonged suspension was relevant to proportionality. On that material, revocation was set aside and restoration of the licence followed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the Customs House Agent licence could be sustained when the charge rested substantially on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the deponents were not offered for cross-examination, and whether the licence deserved restoration in the facts of long suspension and lack of concrete evidence of misuse.

Analysis: The charge against the licensee was founded principally on the statement of an employee said to have acted without authority. The statement was relied upon in the inquiry, yet the maker was not produced for cross-examination. In proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, such statements cannot be used as evidence without affording cross-examination where the regulation makes it mandatory. The record did not show concrete evidence establishing that the proprietor had instructed, consented to, or knowingly benefited from the alleged misuse. The long period during which the licence had remained under suspension was also considered relevant to the proportionality of the action already suffered.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the licence was not justified on the available material, and the licence was ordered to be restored.

Final Conclusion: The order of revocation was set aside and the appellant obtained restoration of the CHA licence with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement used to prove a charge in customs licensing proceedings cannot be relied upon without affording cross-examination where the governing regulation requires it, and revocation of a CHA licence cannot stand absent concrete evidence of knowing misuse by the licensee.

---