Blanket prohibition on a customs house agent exceeded licensing powers and operated as an impermissible revocation.

Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 permits only a limited prohibition from working in one or more sections of a customs station when the Commissioner is satisfied of non-compliance with Regulation 13; it does not support a blanket ban from the entire customs house. After completion of enquiry under Regulation 22, the consequential power is revocation of the licence, and that power cannot be exercised by a Commissioner in respect of a licence issued by another Commissioner. A direction that effectively bars the agent from functioning throughout the customs house therefore exceeds the statutory power and operates as an impermissible revocation without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after completion of enquiry under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, the Commissioner could prohibit the Customs House Agent from working in the Mumbai Customs House under Regulation 21, and whether such an order amounted in substance to revocation of the licence.

Analysis: The charges against the Customs House Agent were held proved, and the order proceeded on the basis that the agent had not complied with the obligations under the licensing regulations. However, Regulation 21 authorises only a prohibition from working in one or more sections of the customs station where the Commissioner is satisfied that the agent has not fulfilled the obligations under Regulation 13. It does not authorise a blanket prohibition from functioning in the entire customs house. Once the enquiry under Regulation 22 had been completed, the only consequential power available was revocation of the licence, and that power could not be exercised by the Mumbai Commissioner in respect of a licence issued by another Commissioner. The impugned direction therefore travelled beyond the scope of Regulation 21 and effectively operated as a revocation without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The prohibition order was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the licensing regulations provide a specific post-enquiry power of revocation under Regulation 22, Regulation 21 cannot be used to impose a blanket prohibition that in substance revokes the licence or exceeds the Commissioner's territorial and statutory authority.

---