Custom House Agent licence revocation upheld on merits, but given prospective effect after prolonged suspension and loss of business.

A Custom House Agent licence revocation was upheld on merits because the licence holder remained responsible for unauthorised acts and omissions committed by its employees under the licensing regulations, even if the partners lacked direct knowledge. However, the Tribunal exercised discretion to give the revocation prospective effect, noting that the licence holder had already suffered suspension and loss of business for about two years. The order was therefore maintained only up to the specified date, after which restoration of the licence was directed. The appeal was thus partly allowed on the basis of prospective operation and leniency.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revocation of the Custom House Agents licence should be allowed to operate only prospectively in view of the appellant's lack of knowledge of the employees' acts and the period already undergone without business.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the unauthorised clearance work was carried out by the appellant's employees without the knowledge of the partners, but held that the appellant remained responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees under the licensing regulations. At the same time, the Tribunal took note that the appellant had already suffered the consequences of suspension and revocation for about two years and relied on the principle that, in appropriate circumstances, revocation of a CHA licence may be given prospective effect as a matter of discretion and leniency.

Conclusion: The revocation order was upheld on merits, but its operation was directed to remain effective only up to the specified date, after which the licence was to be restored. The appeal was thus partly allowed in favour of the appellant.

---