CHA licence revocation requires proved breach and mandatory procedure; unsupported allegations and unauthorised presence are insufficient.

A CHA licence revocation requires proof of the alleged breach and strict compliance with the prescribed revocation procedure. On Regulation 14(b), unauthorised presence at examination of goods was insufficient because the Shipping Bills were filed by an authorised signatory holding a valid G card and there was no evidence that the alleged third parties were employed by or acting under the CHA's instructions. On Regulation 14(e), the record did not identify any specific incorrect information supplied by the CHA or show action beyond the exporter's instructions. The revocation was therefore procedurally unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the CHA was liable for revocation of licence for alleged use of unauthorized persons in violation of Regulation 14(b) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984; (ii) Whether the CHA was liable for revocation of licence for alleged failure to exercise due diligence under Regulation 14(e) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984; (iii) Whether the revocation order was sustainable when the procedure prescribed for revocation under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was not followed.

Issue (i): Whether the CHA was liable for revocation of licence for alleged use of unauthorized persons in violation of Regulation 14(b) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis: The Shipping Bills were filed by the CHA's authorized signatory holding a valid 'G' card. The allegation rested only on the presence of persons at the examination of goods who were said to be unauthorised. There was no evidence that such persons were employed by the CHA or engaged under its instructions. The statement of the authorized signatory did not establish any direction from the CHA to use such persons.

Conclusion: The alleged contravention of Regulation 14(b) was not proved and revocation could not be sustained on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the CHA was liable for revocation of licence for alleged failure to exercise due diligence under Regulation 14(e) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis: Regulation 14(e) required the CHA to exercise due diligence as to the correctness of information imparted to the client. The show cause notice did not identify any specific incorrect information supplied by the CHA. The declarations in the Shipping Bills were made by the exporter, and the department did not show that the CHA acted beyond the exporter's instructions or without authorization. No evidence was gathered from the exporter against the CHA.

Conclusion: The allegation under Regulation 14(e) was unfounded and could not justify revocation.

Issue (iii): Whether the revocation order was sustainable when the procedure prescribed for revocation under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was not followed.

Analysis: Revocation of a CHA licence is a serious consequence and must comply with the procedure laid down for such action. The prescribed procedure was not followed before imposing the extreme penalty of revocation.

Conclusion: The revocation order was procedurally unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The licence revocation was set aside and the CHA's appeal succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A CHA licence cannot be revoked unless the alleged regulatory breach is proved by evidence and the mandatory revocation procedure is duly followed; mere unauthorised presence of third parties or unsupported allegations of incorrect declarations are insufficient.

---