Section 108 statements cannot replace the prescribed inquiry procedure in Customs House Agent licence revocation matters.

Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were treated as insufficient to fasten liability on a Customs House Agent in licensing proceedings, and reliance on them to prove the charges was held impermissible. Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was also read as requiring the inquiry report to be furnished to the agent and the representation to be considered before final action; the Commissioner could not discard the inquiry report and revoke the licence without following that sequence. The revocation order was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned action was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be relied upon as evidence against a Customs House Agent in proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. (ii) Whether the Commissioner could disregard the inquiry report and revoke the licence without following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be relied upon as evidence against a Customs House Agent in proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis: The inquiry officer had exonerated the Customs House Agent on all charges. The revocation was founded on statements recorded under section 108. Those statements were held not to be admissible for fastening liability against the Customs House Agent in licensing proceedings, in view of the governing regulation and the earlier Tribunal view treating such statements as insufficient for that purpose.

Conclusion: The reliance on section 108 statements to prove the charges against the Customs House Agent was held to be impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner could disregard the inquiry report and revoke the licence without following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 23 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis: Regulation 23 requires the inquiry report to be furnished to the Customs House Agent and representation to be considered before final orders are passed. The power under Regulation 23(7) operates only after compliance with the preceding sub-regulations. The Commissioner's disagreement memo and immediate revocation were found contrary to the prescribed sequence and beyond the permissible procedure.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was not competent to discard the inquiry report and revoke the licence in breach of Regulation 23.

Final Conclusion: The revocation order could not be sustained, and the Customs House Agent succeeded in setting aside the impugned action.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, the Commissioner must strictly follow the statutory sequence, including furnishing the inquiry report and considering the agent's representation, and cannot sustain revocation by impermissibly relying on section 108 statements or bypassing the inquiry procedure.

---